Teacher Metalinguistic Awareness and Input for Learning

CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk

Provided by HKU Scholars Hub

Why Do L2 Teachers Need to 'Know About Language'? Teacher Title Metalinguistic Awareness and Input for Learning

Author(s) Andrews, SJ

Citation Language and Education, 1999, v. 13 n. 3, p. 161-177

Issued Date 1999

URL http://hdl.handle.net/10722/42666

Rights Creative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License Why Do L2 Teachers Need to ‘Know About Language’? Teacher Metalinguistic Awareness and Input for Learning

Stephen Andrews Department of Curriculum Studies, University of Hong Kong

Thispaper sets out to examinethe importance in theinstructed-learning setting of the L2teacher’ s ‘knowledge about language’(her metalinguisticawareness , or TMA). Threequestions are examined in relationto TMA: (1)Do L2teachers need to ‘know about language?’(2) If so, why, and in whatways? and (3)What impact does the level/natureof ateacher’s metalinguisticawareness have on theinput which ismade availablefor learning? The paperfirst of alladopts a theoreticalstance in relationto thesethree questions. A model of TMAisproposed whereit isseen as performinga crucialrole in thelanguage teaching/ languagelearning process because of itspotential impactupon input forlearning. The paperthen examines empirical evidence relating to thethree questions and tothevalidity of theTMA constructby reportingon data gatheredfrom classroom observation and semi-structuredinterviews with three L2 teachers working in secondary schools in Hong Kong.

Introduction The argumentsin supportof the assertionthat L2 teachers need asound ‘knowledge aboutlanguage’ (‘ teachermetalinguistic awareness’ , orTMA,in the terminologyused in thispaper) mayseem self-evident, sincefor hundreds of yearsgrammar, and a focuson form,have been atthe heartoflanguage teaching, firstof classical languages and then of modernlanguages. Throughout these centuries,as Howatt(1984) records, there hasbeen the occasionaldissident to challenge the grammar-basedorthodoxy. But until the 1960sthe majorityof the differences ofopinion withregard to grammar centred upon how it should be taught rather than whether it should be taught. More recently, however,grammar has passedthrough a period inwhich ithas hadto share,indeed cede, itsposition as the centralfocus of L2instruction. This hasbeen partlycaused by the adventof communicative language teaching (CLT), andthe ‘switchof attention from teaching the language systemto teachingthe language ascommunication’(Howatt, 1984: 277). As Tonkyn (1994: 4)points out, CLT ‘…tended toplay downthe value ofgrammar teaching. Communicativesuccess, it was suggested, did notnecessarily require grammar’. Atthe sametime, more direct challenges tothe importanceof form-focused instructionhave been made,starting with Newmark’ s influential 1966paper ‘Hownot to interfere withlanguage learning’, andcontinuing morerecently withthe ideasof, for example, Krashen(1981, 1982, 1985) and Prabhu (1987).At the heartof these challenges, andcentral to the ensuing debate,is the natureof the relationshipbetween explicit knowledge ofgrammar and implicit knowledge ofgrammar.The interface between these twotypes ofknowledge hasnot only preoccupied applied linguistsand L2 acquisition researchers: in cognitive

0950-0782/99/03 0161-17 $10.00/0 ©1999 S. Andrews LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION Vol. 13, No. 3, 1999 1 6 1 162 Language and Education psychologythe paralleldistinction between declarativeand procedural knowledge hasbeen the subject ofmuch recent debate aboutgeneral theoriesof human learning (as discussed, for example, by Johnson, 1996, and Robinson, 1997). Krashendistinguishes between ‘learning’(explicit knowledge, whichis the resultof conscious study) and‘ acquisition’(a subconscious process occurring only when the learner’s attentionis focused onconveying meaning andresulting in implicitknowledge), andhe assertsthat it is ‘ acquired’(implicit) knowledge which isrequired forcommunication. Krashen claims that formal instruction cannotpromote this implicit knowledge, andthat there isno interface between the twotypes ofknowledge, i.e.learning cannotbecome acquisition.As aresult, the only value offormal instruction is in helping todevelop explicit knowledge, which isseen by Krashenas havingvery limiteduse, forthe purposes ofmoni- toring,and then only when the learner hastime to monitorher output.Prabhu’ s viewsare a littledifferent: itis not so much thatformal instruction cannot promotethe learning ofgrammar,but ratherthat grammar is learnt more effec- tively throughcommunication. Though Krashen’s positionhas been challenged by manywriters, among them McLaughlin (1987)and Gregg (1984),his ideas andthose of Prabhu havenevertheless hada profound influence onlanguage teachingand helped todestabilise perceptions of the roleof form-focused instruction. In the pastten years,for a varietyof reasons, the pendulum hasstarted to swingback, with grammar and form-focused instruction enjoying somethingof areturn tofavour. In partthis was caused by the reactionagainst Krashen’ s views,with his assumption that there isno interface between explicit and implicitknowledge being dismissedas simplistic(Sharwood Smith, 1981: 166), andwith many of hiscritics arguing, as Mitchell (1994:90) describes, that ‘ … learning canbecome acquisition’. During thisperiod, the natureof the role played by the learner’s consciousmental processes in L2acquisition has been widely discussedin the literature(see, forexample, the studiescited in Schmidt, 1993:207).One ofthe suggestionswhich hascome to the fore in these morerecent reassessmentsof the roleof explicit knowledge ofgrammarin L2learning isthat ‘consciousness-raising’(Rutherford, 1987) or ‘ input enhancement’(Sharwood Smith,1991) — i.e.focusing the learner’s attentionon highlighted aspectsof input —hasa valuablerole to play in the language learning process.Other factorshave also contributed to a renewed interestin the roleof explicit knowledge ofgrammar,in the teachingof L1as well asL2.In the UK,forinstance, the Language Awarenessmovement (with itsorigins in the workof Hawkins,1981, 1984) has been highly influential. In spite ofthisrevived supportfor the value offocusing onform,there isstill uncertainty,for many teachers, about the roleof grammarand how it is most effi- ciently taughtand learnt. Among teachers who are themselves products of an educationsystem in whichthe formalteaching of grammarwas anathema, this uncertaintyis often accompaniedby considerableworry and doubt about their ownKAL (ormetalinguistic awareness), and about the impactit might have in the teaching/learning process.It is this knowledge (TMA) which formsthe focus of the rest of the paper. The paper sets out to address three questions in relation to TMA: Teacher Metalinguistic Awareness and Imput for Learning 163

(1) Do L2 teachers need to ‘know about language’? (2) If so, why? and in what ways? (3) Whatimpact does the level/natureof ateacher’s metalinguisticawareness have on the input which is made available for learning? The discussionis in twomain parts. In the first,a theoreticalstance is adopted in relationto these three questions,and a modelof TMAisproposed where itis seen asperforming acrucialrole in the language teaching/language learning processbecause ofitspotential impact upon input forlearning. The secondpart ofthe paper examinesempirical evidence relatingto the three questionsand to the validityof the TMAconstructby reporting ondatagathered fromclassroom observation and semi-structured interviews with L2 teachers.

What is ‘Teacher Metalinguistic Awareness’ (TMA)? Before proceeding further, we shoulddiscuss what is meant by TMA—isit anydifferent fromthe explicit (declarative)knowledge oflanguage referred to earlier inrelationto learners?As a startingpoint it might be helpful toconsider Thornbury’s (1997:x) definition ofteachers’ language awarenessas ‘ …the knowledge thatteachers have of the underlying systemsof the language that enables themto teacheffectively’ . If weexplore the natureof thatknowledge a littlefurther, itsrelationship with explicit language knowledge andthe reasons for using the term TMA may become clearer. The term‘ metalinguistic’as used in thispaper ismeant to reflect the qualita- tivedifferences between the language knowledge/awarenessof the educated user ofalanguage andthatrequired by the teacherof thatlanguage. In orderto be aneffective communicatorin the language, in boththe spoken andwritten media,the formerneeds todrawon bothimplicit and explicit language knowledge. In the sameway,the teacherof thatlanguage alsoneeds tobe able todraw onsuch knowledge. The extent towhich she isable todoso determines howwell she isable toact as a modelfor her students.However, effective L2teaching requires ofthe teachermore than just the possessionof suchknowledge andthe abilityto draw upon itfor communicative purposes. The L2teacheralso needs to reflect upon thatknowledge andability, and upon her knowledge ofthe underlying systemsof the language, inorderto ensure thather studentsreceive maxi- mallyuseful input forlearning. These reflectionsbring anextra cognitive dimensionto the teacher’s language knowledge/awareness,which informsthe tasksof planning andteaching. It is in acknowledgement ofthe importanceof thiscognitive dimension that the term‘ metalinguistic’is employed in the present paper. Atthe sametime,the term‘ awareness’is used in preference to‘ knowledge’in orderto emphasisethe importantdifference between the possessionof knowledge andthe use madeof suchknowledge —the declarativeand procedural dimensions.As part of her explicit language knowledge, ateachermight, for example, havea highly developed knowledge of metalanguage.However, whether suchknowledge wasused appropriatelywould be determined by that teacher’s metalinguisticawareness. Depending onthe context,the metalinguisticallyaware teacher might well makeminimal use ofmetalanguage in the classroom, however extensive her own knowledge might be. 164 Language and Education

In principle, TMAisapplicable tothe full range ofa teacher’s language knowledge andawareness. The focusof the present paper, however,is limited to grammar.Explicit knowledge ofgrammaris seen asforming the coreof anyL2 teacher’s metalinguistic awareness.

How Might TMA Ideally Reveal Itself When the Focus is on Form? Havingnow defined TMA,andnoted that the present paper isfocusing specifically upon grammar,it is appropriate to consider how TMA mightideally manifestitself in teacherbehaviour where the pedagogicalapproach incorpo- ratesa focuson form. This is discussed both by Andrews(1994), and also by Leech (1994)in hisanalysis of the ‘maturecommunicative knowledge’ of grammar required by the teacher. Accordingto Leech, the ‘model’teacher of languages should be able toput across‘ …asense ofhowgrammar interacts with the lexiconas acommunicative system… ’and‘ …be able toanalyse the grammaticalproblems that learners encounter’. Atthe sametime, such a teachershould ‘ …havethe abilityand confidence toevaluatethe use ofgrammar,especially by learners,against criteria of accuracy,appropriateness and expressiveness’ , and‘ …be awareof the contrastiverelations between nativelanguage andforeign language’. Lastly,the ‘model’teacher should ‘ …understandand implement the processesof simplifi- cationby which overtknowledge ofgrammarcan best be presented tolearnersat different stages of learning’ (Leech, 1994: 18) Aswith any such list, one mightwish to suggestcertain modifications. For instance,one mightwant to add another aspect of simplificationto those mentioned by Leech, tosuggestthat the ‘model’(i.e. metalinguisticallyaware) teachershould control her ownuse oflanguage toa level appropriateto her students.Whatever minor adjustments one mightfeel inclined tomake, such a listnevertheless providesa useful inventoryof facetsof teacherbehaviour when observing samples of TMA in action.

Is TMA Important Only in L2 Classrooms Where the Focus is on Form? Before movingon, it is important to consider the extent towhich postulating a construct‘ teachermetalinguistic awareness’ with explicit knowledge of grammarat itscore presupposes aform-focused 1 approachto language teaching. Thisquestion is of particularimportance given the challenges toform-focused instructionreferred toearlier,and the factthat the forceof these challenges still reverberates within the profession. Itshould be clearfrom the preceding discussionthat TMA canpotentiallyplay acrucialrole in determining the successof anyform-focused approach designed todevelop learners’explicit knowledge. Forinstance, within a traditional‘ P-P-P’ (Presentation-Practice-Production) teachingsequence, TMAisa significant factorat eachstage from lesson preparation through to the provisionof correc- tive feedback. Lessobviously perhaps, the adoptionof an approach which is primarily meaning-focused 2 mayin factpose no less of a challenge toa teacher’s metalinguisticawareness, and TMA maybe nolesscrucial to the successof such Teacher Metalinguistic Awareness and Imput for Learning 165 anapproach. For example, the selectionof suitable learning tasksin amean- ing-focused approachmay involve considering such factors as the potential linguistic demandsof the taskand the linguistic capacityof the learnersto cope withthose demands. Also, learners following a coursewhich adopts a meaning-focused approachmay in factattend to form, and therefore demandfrom the teacherexplanations of formal features, and feedback onthe formof their attemptsat producing English.In addition,approaches to teaching which claim tobe meaning-focused mayin anycase be covertlyform-focused or mayhave a form-focused strand. Even withinthose approaches which are the leastsympathetic to form-focusedinstruction (such asthoseinspired by Krashen),one couldargue thatTMA playsa significantpart in the effectiveness orotherwiseof whattakes place in the classroom.Krashen’ s Input Hypothesis(Krashen, 1981, 1985), for example, proposesthat ‘ comprehensible input’is a majorcausative factor in L2 acquisition.If ateacherwanted her classroomto be amajorsource of comprehensible input andtherefore an‘ acquisition-rich’environment, then she would presumably need tomakedecisions about the currentstage of development of her students’ ‘ acquired systems’, and: · select texts providing comprehensible input; · devise tasks entailing an appropriate level of linguistic challenge; and · controlher ownlanguage toa level alittlebeyond the students’current level of competence. All of these taskswould pose considerablechallenges tothe teacher’s metalinguistic awareness.

The Role of TMA in Structuring Input for Learners There maycontinue tobe disagreementsabout the precise natureof the part whichinput playsin language learning (compare,for instance, the views expressed in Long,1981 and White, 1987). There is,however, no doubt that learnersneed tobeexposed toL2 input asapreconditionfor learning totake place. In the contextof anyL2 classroom, the three mainsources of input forlearners arematerials, other learners, and the teacherherself. The modelbelow is intended toshowhow a teacher’s metalinguisticawareness can interact with the language produced by allthree sources,operating as a kind of‘ filter’affecting the wayin whicheach source of input ismade available to the learner.The language in teachingmaterials, for example, maybe filtered asaresultof having been specifically selected by the teacheror mediated through teacher presentation.On the otherhand, it may be availableto studentsin ‘unfiltered’form, as when atextbookis studied at homeindependently ofthe teacher.The language produced by learnersmay alsobe ‘filtered’through the teacher’s metalinguistic awareness,as aresult,for instance, of teacher correction, or it may be availableto otherlearners in unfiltered form,as in unmonitoredgroup discussion.Even the language produced by the teacherherself maynot necessarily be filtered by the teacher’s metalinguisticawareness. In anylanguage lessonthe teachermay produce language where she isfully awareof the potentialof thatlanguage as input forlearning andtherefore structuresit accordingly. In the samelesson, 166 Language and Education

Figure 1 however,there will almostcertainly be manyteacher utterances which are less consciouslymonitored, and which arenot intended by the teacherto lead to learning, but which arenevertheless potentiallyavailable to the learner asinput (see Figure 1). There areanumber offactorswhich affect the extent towhich TMAinteracts witheach of these three sourcesof input. Time constraints,for instance, have a majorimpact: limits on the timeavailable for preparation have a significantinflu- ence upon the teacher’s abilityto filter the input frommaterials, while the ‘real time’constraints and distractions of the classroominevitably restrictthe teacher’s scopefor filtering potentialinput which occursspontaneously during the lesson.The qualityof all three sourcesof ‘filtered’input will alsobe critically influenced by the extent ofthe teacher’s explicit knowledge, her confidence in her own knowledge, and her awareness in making use of her knowledge.

The Impact of TMA upon Input for Learning — Some Preliminary Findings The remainderof the paper attemptsto shed light onthe potentialimpact of TMAupon the input whichis made available for learning. Drawingupon data gathered aspartof anin-depth studyof the TMAof17HongKong secondary schoolteachers of English, the paper examinespreliminary evidence froma sampleof three ofthese teachers.These three teacherswere selected asbeing representativeof different levels ofmetalinguistic awareness. As part of the Teacher Metalinguistic Awareness and Imput for Learning 167 in-depth studyall 17 teachers were observedon twooccasions when they were giving agrammar-basedlesson as partof their normalteaching sequence. The firstof the twolessons was videotaped, while the secondwas audiotaped. Each teacherwas also interviewed twice,using asemi-structuredformat. The inter- viewswere audiotapedfor subsequent analysis.In the followingdiscussion, whichdraws upon the interview andclassroom data, a neutralstance is taken towardsthe teachers’approach to the teachingof grammar, since evaluative commenton methodologyis beyond the scopeof the present paper. Instead,the focusis on what was revealed abouteach teacher’ s metalinguisticawareness, andits effect upon the qualityof the input madeavailable to the studentsfor learning. The teachersdescribed in the paper areall Hong Kong Chinese, withat least three years’full-time teachingexperience in secondaryschools. All aregradu- ates,in subjects relatedto English,but withno professionaltraining. At the time the datawere gathered,all the teacherswere takinga two-yearpart-time post- graduatecertificate in education(PCEd) courseat the Universityof HongKong. 3 The firstinterview andthe firstobserved lesson took place atthe beginning of their course.

Rose Rose’s educationwas spent entirely in HongKong, but she isthe productof a secondaryschool education which was wholly English-medium except forthe subjects of Chinese andChinese History.She hasa well-developed implicit knowledge ofgrammar, which is reflected in her fluency andconfidence asa communicatorboth orally and in writing.She isfar less confident abouther explicit knowledge, however— somethingshe attributesto her experience at school,which, according to her, involvedlittle or no explicit teachingof grammar: Ourteachers don’ t teachus any grammar at all.We justtake out our text- bookand do the exercisesin reading comprehensionor in writing… instead of teaching us the grammar item … ActuallyI amvery afraidof grammar.I think itwas influenced by the secondary school. So I am afraid to teach grammar to my students too … Possiblyas a responseto her learning experience (which she describesas ‘self learning’) andher ownresulting fear of grammar,Rose makes statements suggesting thatshe isa firm believer in whatshe labelsa ‘traditional’approach to learning grammar: Ithink tolearna language wehaveto know the basicrules. I think wehave tolearn grammar in amoretraditional way. That means taking notes and then remembering …andthen recite the rules.I think wehaveto memorise itinstead of makinguse ofthe communicativemethod to …learngrammar. She feels thatsuch an approach makes a valuablecontribution to students’ developing ability to speak grammatically correct English: …Istillthink thatthey’ re really absent-minded students.Because … we teachthe samegrammar item in form1 toform7, but they stilldon’ t under- 168 Language and Education

stand.So if wedonot teach the grammaritems in ourway they don’t know whatis grammar actually. So wehaveto teachthem grammar, and then by teachingthem this grammar here they canat least have some control over their … grammar items. In her implementationof thisapproach, Rose is heavily relianton the textbook andon ‘standardisedexercises for the whole formprepared by the teachers… [where] …you haveto explain the sentence firstand then askthem to fill inthe blanks’In exploiting these materials,Rose follows a deductive, form-focused approach,which she describesas followsin relationto the teachingof reported speech: I’ll give thema sheet ofpaper withtables. The tablestell themthe rules ofthe changes… fromdirect speech toindirect speech. The firstone will be the changesof tensesand then the changesof the timeand place, in the nextone itwill be the modalverbs. And then I’ll writedown some of the sentences on the blackboardand ask them to change itfor me intoreported speech. And then Iwill tell themthe different types in reportedspeech …thatmeans statementquestions and then commands,and then we’ll doit together for the whole classin the blackboard.And then I’ll give themexercises … the purpose consolidation,to check whether they understandit or not. Shortlyafter this interview Rosewas observed giving alessonon reported speech whichfollowed exactly the sequence described above.One feature ofthe input throughoutthe lessonwas that the ‘standardisedexercises’ encouraged a very formulaicapplication of all the ‘rules’, withthe resultthat students were being askedto produce extremely unnaturalsentences when transformingdirect speech into indirect speech, for example: The farmer told his wife ‘Go and feed the ducks now’ The farmer told his wife to go and feed the ducks then The inadequaciesof suchinput could,of course,be seen asaproductof the materialsrather than any direct contribution from the teacher.Certainly, there waslittleevidence thatRose’ s TMAwasactivelyengaged in filtering the content ofthe worksheets.Whether thiswas due toalackof time,a lackof confidence, or alackof metalinguisticawareness is hard to judge. However,Rose appeared not toperceive anyweakness in the exercises,even when promptedto do so in post-lessondiscussion, a factwhich could in itself be takenas anindicationof the limitations of her TMA. These limitationsbecame apparentin the lesson,on the few occasionswhen Roseeither embellished ordeparted from the worksheet‘ script’, producing statementswhich were potentiallysources of greatconfusion for the students.In the middle ofthe lesson,for instance, she attemptedto give guidelines for ‘changes in modal verbs’: OKnowwe’ ll takea lookat changesin modalverbs. Sometimes the word must will remainunchanged. However,sometimes we haveto change it into had to.Doyou knowunder whatsituations we will haveto change the word must into had to in reportedspeech? When the word must in the direct Teacher Metalinguistic Awareness and Imput for Learning 169

speech refers tosomething that happens in the future. So you haveto change it into had to in the reported speech, OK?’ Thisstatement, which went beyond anything onthe worksheet,directly contradictsthe ‘rules’given in manyreference grammars.For example, accordingto Swan’s PracticalEnglish Usage: Second Edition :‘The modals would, should,could, might, ought and must areusually unchanged afterpast reporting verbsin indirectspeech’ (Swan, 1995:505). Rose also did nothing to clarifyher prescriptive statement.Instead, appearing toaccept the lackof response to her ‘OK?’asanindicationthat the studentshad understood, she movedon tothe next item on the worksheet without further comment. Asecondexample ofthe potentialconfusion caused by the limitationsof Rose’s TMAcamein the very lastmoments of the lesson,when the studentswere given the following sentence totransform: Didyou sleep well last night? he asked her. The nominatedstudent produced the transformation He askedher if shehad sleptwell the night before .Roseaccepted the answer,rephrased the reportedques- tion,replacing (withoutexplanation) thenight before with theprevious night , and then askedthe class‘ Pastperfect orpasttense?’ After aninaudible responseto her question,she said:‘ Thatmeans you caneither write had slept or slept. Either one iscorrect. The pasttense canremain unchanged in reportedspeech orchange itinto past perfect, OK?’Again noexplanation,exemplification orclarification wasoffered, very possiblybecause Rosewas unable tooffer any.For those studentswhose attention was engaged, however,the input onthis point must havebeen highly confusing. Onthe one hand,Rose’ s statementseemed to confirmthe impressiongiven by the tablein the ‘standardisedexercises ‘ that tense selectionin thiscase was totallyarbitrary. On the otherhand, the statementwas in directcontradiction to both the examplesencountered earlier in the lesson when the pasttense in directspeech hadbeen changed withoutquestion to past perfect in reported speech. When interviewed, Rosewas very frank aboutthe limitationsof her TMA,and offered avividexample ofitsimpact on input forlearning asshe described the difficulties she hadexperienced in arecent lessonteaching passive voice, and her inability to assist the efforts of one student to relate form to meaning: It’s easyif you askthem to rewrite the sentences,because they find iteasy to follow.However, when you give thema contextin paragraph,they cannot fill inthe correctverb. They justdon’ t knowwhen arewe supposed touse passivevoice and when wearesupposed touse activevoice. And one ofthe studentseven askedme ‘MissWong, why dowehaveto use passivevoice in ourdaily life?’ and I find thisquestion difficult toanswer, ha, and I ‘Oh I’ll tell you nexttime’ … andthen Iaskedmy colleagues‘ why douse and teachpassive voice?’ and no one cangive me the correctanswer. And then I gohome and think aboutit. But even nowI really don’t knowhow to answerthat student’ s questions.I finish the worksheetswith them and they knowhow to rewrite the sentences.But I don’t knowhow to explain to them.

Benjamin Benjamin isnot such a fluent communicatoras Rose,despite anexperience of 170 Language and Education

‘immersion’in anEnglish-speaking environmentfor his tertiary studies, which hasleft him witha strongNorth American accent. In contrastwith Rose, Benjamin claimsto like grammar.He saysthat he enjoys teachinggrammar, because, inhiswords: ‘ I’mjusta grammarperson I think’. However,like Rose, Benjamin alsofeels thathe did notlearn much grammarfrom his own teachers: ‘When Ilearnmore about grammar, I readbooks myself, because when Iwasin secondary schools I didn’t learn much from the teachers’. Benjamin’s experience asateacherhas led him toconclude thatstudents lack interestin grammarbecause they haveso few opportunitiesto use English:‘ My pastimpression is that they’ re notquite interestedin learning grammar,because they don’t havechance to use it.Especially they havelittle chance to speak in English’. Asa result,Benjamin adoptsan exam-oriented approach, which he likens to ‘instant noodles’: So myapproachis realistically… targetfor tests and examinations I would say.So it’s justlike instantnoodles … feed them,and they haveto tryto haveit, eat it yeh …learnsomething they need mechanicallyto fit in the examinations and tests. In followingthis exam-oriented approach to teachingBenjamin uses:‘ …basi- callythe textbook.If Ihavemore time, I’ ll prepare someworksheets for them. It is better tailored … I think it is tailored, so it is easier for them to digest’. In boththe observedlessons (possibly because the lessonswere being observed) Benjamin attemptedto go beyond the textbookto provide something ‘better tailored’to the needs ofhis students. An analysisof the firstof those lessonswill showthe extent towhich this made the ‘instantnoodles’ easier to digest,and the impactwhich Benjamin’ s TMAhadupon the input madeavailable for learning. In the interview,which happened toprecede the observedlesson, Benjamin identified his aim as: Iamgoing toteach future continuoustense today.I will relateit to their … existing knowledge, and this is the present continuous tense. In the actuallesson, Benjamin didindeed begin withrecall of the present continuous,a strategywhich mighthave been useful ifithad helped students towardsan appreciationof the commonsemantic features of progressive aspect when used in combinationwith various verb forms.Benjamin, however,made nosuch connections. Instead, having emphasised the link between present continuousand now,hispresentation of the future continuousmerely pointed out that the time referred to was future not present. First,he introducedhis topic: ‘ TodayI’ dlike tointroduceyou toanew one, future continuoustense. What’ s itall about, future continuoustense?’ Having received no answer to his question, he gave an example: Tomwill be washinghis car tomorrow morning .The timehere istomorrow morning. It is not now. It is tomorrow morning. He then drew a time-line in an attempt to clarify the time referred to: I’mtalkingat thispoint of time[pointing toTODAY on time-line] …I’m Teacher Metalinguistic Awareness and Imput for Learning 171

saying Tomwill be washinghis car tomorrow morning .Thisperiod OK? [pointing totomorrowmorning on time-line] …I’mtalkingabout this time andit hasn’t existedyet OK?The timestill doesn’ t happen yet,right? When we are talking the situation like this, we use future continuous tense’ Havingestablished the link between the future continuousand reference to future time,Benjamin spent much ofthe remainderof the lessonfocusing on adverbialmarkers of future timereference, ratherthan any distinctive meaning associatedwith the future continuous.As a result,when the classwere doing a mechanicalpractice exercise fromthe textbook,putting verbsinto the future continuous, e.g. Thomas (complete) ...... his university degree next year Benjamin madea pointof getting the studentsto underline allthe ‘wordsof time’as soonas they hadproduced the required verb form.This association of the future continuouswith certain time adverbials was a recurrent theme, possiblybecause itwas seen asbeing potentiallyhelpful in the examination context: Youcan see the later here, later right?When weareusing future continuous tense, we use these words of time, OK? later, later. Iwantto introduce you tosomewords of timethat we alwaysuse totell the future continuous tense OK? later, in three weeks’ time , tomorrow morning . Benjamin showedno sign ofrecognising thata majorlearning difficulty for the studentsmight be in understandingthe specific meaning/use ofthe future continuousin relationto other ways of talkingabout the future. His self-produced worksheetcontaining a multiple-choice taskinvolving time-lines did notmake the meaning/use much clearer,since three ofhis four example sentences couldbe expressed using avarietyof other future forms,see Figure 2:

Figure 2

In one ofhisfour examplesBenjamin diduse future continuousin adistinctive way,in combinationwith the adverb still toconvey continuityfrom present to future time: 172 Language and Education

In the example ofnumber 4 Iwillstill be sittingin thesame placewhen you return … the future continuoustense isused fromnow on tolaterright? I’ m sittinghere now,and I will be sittinghere when you return.It is now1.30 pm and then you will be back at 3 pm right? Understand? Thisuse wasnotemphasised, however, and no attemptwas made to contrast the future continuouswith other ways of talking about future time.Instead, Benjamin’s paraphrasedexplanations of sentences in the practiceexercises were potentialsources of greatconfusion because ofthe use ofarange ofverb forms, apparently interchangeably, to refer to future time: Theywill be eatingtheir dinner much laterthan usual tonight .Tonightthey are going to have dinner right? But it will be late, it will be later. Hewillnot be savingthe money he’ s goingto earn inthesummer .Thissummer he’s going toearn some money. But he’ s notgoing tosave it. He will notbe savingthe money.He will use up allthe money.He don’t saveany money … Although there were somedifferences between thislesson and Rose’ s, in that Benjamin hadsufficient confidence in hisown TMA thathe wasnot wholly reliant onmaterials created by others,the examplesabove suggest that the impactof Benjamin’s TMA upon the input madeavailable for learning waspotentially equally negative.No clear distinctions were madebetween the future continuous andother, previously taught,ways of talkingabout the future, andstudents were given the misleadingimpression that there wasa close,if notunique, association between certainfuture timeadverbials and the future continuous.

Alex The final example isa morepositive one, in thatit demonstrates clearly how TMAcanhave a constructiveinfluence in shaping the input madeavailable for learning. Alex isa rathermore experienced teacherthan either Benjamin orRose:he has been ateacherfor 10 years,all spent in the sameschool. Alex received the whole ofhis education in HongKong, but hissecondary schooling, like Rose’s, was English-medium in allsubjects except Chinese andChinese History.He isa very confident,proficient communicatorin English,possessing a relaxedease with the language which carries over into his classroom teaching. Alex’s ownexperience of learning English wasvery traditionaland grammar-focused: Ithink the only thing Ilearned in school… every daywhen Iwentto my English classI satthere anddid a lotof grammarexercises, filling in blanks, answeringquestions, writing sentences mechanically.Every daywas like that in my days. He acknowledgesthat it was a boring wayto learn but he believes thatit worked well for him: Ilearned English throughthis old-fashioned boring wayand I feel I’mquite successful. I don’t know if I am or not, but I feel I’m quite successful. Teacher Metalinguistic Awareness and Imput for Learning 173

Asateacher,however, he doesnot employ the sameapproach, not because he nolonger believes in itsefficacy, but because he thinksthat Hong Kong students have changed: Students arenot patient as we were in the past.If wekept using thatold method,certainly they will be very bored andthey won’t botherto doyour workat all. You have to handle the discipline problem alotif you keep using thatmethod … Ithink [grammar]is important but you haveto change the way to do it. Alex addressesthe boredomproblem, notby reducing the attentionhe paysto grammar,but by attemptingto dealwith grammar in amoreinteresting manner: Ithink whether it’s boring ornotdepends onhow you dealwith it. What I cando isto make the activitiesmore interesting, make the communication between meandthe classmore fun andcloser and so on.In thatway I make it less boring. For Alex, grammar is at the centre of what he does as a teacher: Istillthink [grammar]forms the coreof everything. Withoutthe correct grammarwe canhardly communicate actually, or it’ s very difficult to communicate. So I think it’s a core actually. Asaresult,he spends asignificantamount of timeon grammar,in orderto try and help his students improve their performance in, for example, writing: Ispend quite alotof timeon [grammar] actually. Because if they keep producing compositionswith a lotof mistakesand so on, it’ s quite discour- aging tothem. I tryto provide basicknowledge. Some ofthem may feel bored because the thingsI covermay seem very easyto them but tothe general classmaybe it’s appropriate,so I spend alotof timecovering basic things actually with them. In boththe observedlessons Alex demonstrateda commitmentto teaching grammarin awaywhich engaged hisstudents’ interest and attention. At the sametime, it was clear that he possesseda level ofTMAwhich contributedvery positively to the quality of the input made available for learning. Alex’s confidence isshownin the wayheregularly makesdirect use oflearner outputas a majorsource of input intohis grammar teaching. The learner output is‘ filtered’through Alex’ s TMA,and shaped to fit withhis conception of whathe wantsto make available as input forlearning. AsAlex describesit, he frequently gives hisstudents a contextor atheme: ‘…justto give themideas. I’ ll simply pick up afew which areexactlywhat I wantand some close to whatI want.I will start withthose not exactly what I want,and try to see if there wouldbe anyrelation- ship between the two, and then from there go on to what I want to talk about’. The firstobserved lesson showed this process in action.Alex wantedto focus onmodals expressing obligation.Having got the studentsto draft a setof rules fora swimmingpool, he askedthem to produce atleastfour rules relatingto the conductof the English lesson.The studentswere then put in pairsand asked to discusseach other’ s rules.Each pair had to decide whether their partner’s proposedrules were reasonableor unreasonable, and to select their twomost 174 Language and Education importantrules. Alex then elicited someof the suggested rules,and listed five of them on the board. Notingthat all five exampleswere expressed negatively, using the negative formof the modal can,Alex invited the classto think abouthow they would re-express the ideaspositively. He then elicited possible waysof expressing rules positively.In doingso, he gavea cleardemonstration of his highly developed TMAwithhis skilful deflection ofthe inappropriatesuggestion may, where he illustratedits meaning andclarified itsunsuitability for expressing rules without using any metalanguage: …Rewritethem in apositiveway. Besides the word can,whatcan we use? Whatother words like the word can? … [Ss ‘Must‘]…Forrules wecanuse must.Whatelse? …[Ss ‘May‘] … erm may uhuh Isit a goodone? For rules? If I say Youmay speak in English ,ifyou don’t wantto, then you don’t doit, right?So will itbe OK?No.If you use the word may,itmeans that if you do it,very good… ifyou don’t doit, OK, fine. So forrules maybe nota good one. The secondobserved lesson shed light onAlex’ s TMA in aratherdifferent way,this time in the skill withwhich he ‘filtered’and dealt with the deficiencies ofthe input providedby the textbook(Sampson, 1994). The grammarpoint in thisparticular case was the use ofthe present participle tojoin twosentences with the same subject. According to the students’ version of the textbook: Wecanuse the present participle, -ing,tojoin togethertwo sentences with the same subject. Example: Mr Lee heard a noise. He got up and looked outside. Hearing a noise, Mr Lee got up and looked outside. Alex began by focusing briefly onthe example given in the book.He then introducedexamples of hisown toillustrate the processof combining sentences withthe samesubject, before askingthe studentsto worksentence by sentence through the practice exercise in the textbook. The rubric forthe exercise establishedthe contextof a policemangoing tothe scene of a robbery, and then gave the students the following instructions: Rewritethe sentences using the correct -ing participle.Follow the example: (1) Peter received acallon his radio. He wentstraight to the scene ofthe robbery. Receivinga callonhisradio,Peter went straightto thescene oftherobbery. The first three items in the exercise were as follows: (2) He saw a man lying on the floor. He went over to help him. (3) Hesawthatthe manwasbadly injured, soPeter calledan ambulance. (4) The ambulancearrived a few minuteslater. The manwas taken to hospital. If the learner obeys the instructionto follow the example, andunderstandsthe Teacher Metalinguistic Awareness and Imput for Learning 175 mechanicsof the process,there areno major problems withnumbers (2) and(3). Number (4),however, is a different matter,because the twosentences donot havethe samesubject. In fairnessto the textbook,one mightimagine thisto be a deliberate trap,planted tooblige studentsto think carefully aboutthe taskrather thanjust completing itmechanically. However, there isno indication in the Teacher’s Bookthat there isany such intention. Given the rubric ‘Followthe example’, itwould seem thatconforming to the patternwas the desired learner behaviourrather than anything involving moreactive thought. Number 4there- fore presentsa challenge toany teacher’ s metalinguisticawareness, and a trap for any teacher whose TMA is not fully engaged. In the post-lessondiscussion, Alex revealed thathe hadnoticed the potential difficulty himself when lookingat the materialbefore the lesson.When the class reachednumber 4,he therefore firstof allasked his students if there wasany problem in combining the twosentences. Having elicited the factthat the subjects ofthe twosentences were different, Alex then askedthe studentshow they couldovercome the difficulty. When someoneeventually suggested modi- fying the twooriginalsentences sothatthe subjects were the same,Alex guided the students to make a change to the second sentence: The ambulance took the man to hospital sothat they couldthen join the sentences in accordancewith the desired pattern: Arriving a few minutes later, the ambulance took the man to hospital. The whole procedure wasaccomplished as ifnumber 4presented aninteresting learning challenge rather than an unintended slip in the textbook.

Conclusion Itwas argued in the firstpart of the paper thatTMA playsa crucialrole in structuringinput sothatit ispotentially of maximum usefulness tolearners.The shortprofiles above,with their snapshotsof the TMAofthree teachers,appear to lend supportto thisargument. At the sametime, they illustratesome of the ways in which TMAcanaffect the input madeavailable for learning, bothnegatively and positively. Itwas suggested earlierthat there arethree mainsources of input forclass- roomFL learners,and that TMA caninteractsignificantly with all three sources. Thisis exemplified in the profiles above.All the profiles, forinstance, show the teacher’s metalinguisticawareness interacting with input prepared by others: either the textbookor, in Rose’s case,the school’s ‘standardisedexercises’ . In makingsuch input availableto learners,teachers may respondin variousways, withthe natureof their responsebeing atleastin partdictated by their TMA.The three profiles give someindication of the range ofpossible responses:from the unaware,uncritical, diffident acceptanceof allthat the materialssay, as revealed in Rose’s lesson,to the rathermore aware and self-confident modificationof perceived textbook inadequacies as shown in the second of Alex’s lessons. The three profiles alsoprovide examplesof eachteacher’ s ownoutput, in instanceswhen thisoutput is clearlyintended asinput forlearning. Ineachcase, TMAandthe limitationsof anindividual teacher’s metalinguisticawareness can 176 Language and Education be seen tohavea stronginfluence onthe potentialusefulness ofthissource as input for learning. In the typicalteacher-centred HongKong classroom,where students’few public utterancesare often inaudible toanyone but the teacher,learner outputis generally the leastcommonly available of the three potentialsources of input for learning. Itis nevertheless animportantpotential source of input, andthis is seen in the profiles, whichillustrate contrasting teacher responses to learner output, bothconstructive (as in Alex’s case)and somewhat less so (for example, Rose).As withthe twoother sources, TMA islikely tohave a significanteffect upon the natureof the teacher’s interactionwith learner outputand the extent towhich any teacher is able to exploit such output positively. Itshould be clearfrom the three profiles thatin teacherperformance TMA interactswith a whole range ofmoregeneric aspectsof pedagogical competence, aswell aswithcharacteristics of teacherpersonality and psychological make-up. Nevertheless,given the closenessof its relationship with a teacher’s implicitand explicit language knowledge, andits distinct additional dimension of cognitions andreflection aboutlanguage, there doesseem tobe astrongjustification for recognising itas a specifically language-related facetof L2teacher competence. There appearsto be anequally powerful argumentfor acknowledging the extent ofthe importanceof TMAin anyapproach to L2education which attempts to structureinput forlearning. The precise roleof TMAin thisprocess is an areato which increased research attention could usefully be paid.

Correspondence Any correspondenceshould be directedto DrStephen Andrews,Department ofCurriculum Studies, Universityof HongKong, Pokfulam Road,Hong Kong ([email protected]).

Notes 1.‘ Form-focused’is used torefer toa‘focuson forms’(Long, 1991)or ‘forms-focused’in the terminology used by Doughty and Williams (1998: 4). 2.I.e. with a ‘focus on form’ in Long’s (1991) terminology. 3.It is important tonote thatit is amatter ofconsiderable officialconcern in Hong Kong thatso many teachers ofEnglish lackproper training. In1995the Hong Kong Educa- tion Commission expressed the view thatone ofthe main reasons forweaknesses in language in educationwas ‘ …the factthat a large number oflanguage teachers are not fully trained’(ECR6: vii). A 1991government survey suggested thatonly 21%of Hong Kong’s graduate secondary school teachers ofEnglish had bothsubject-training and professional training.

References Andrews, S.J.(1994)The grammaticalknowledge/ awareness ofnative-speaker EFL teachers: Whatthe trainers say. In M.Bygate, A.Tonkyn and E.Williams (eds) Grammar and the Language Teacher (pp. 69–89). Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall. Doughty, C.and Williams, J.(eds) (1998) Focuson Formin ClassroomSecond Language Acquisition . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Education Commission (1995)Education Commission Report No.6 — Enhancing LanguageProficiency: A ComprehensiveStrategy .Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government. Gregg, K. (1984) Krashen’s Monitor and Occam’s Razor. Applied Linguistics 5, 79–100. Hawkins, E.W(1981) ModernLanguages in theCurriculum .Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Teacher Metalinguistic Awareness and Imput for Learning 177

Hawkins, E.W(1984) Awarenessof Language: An Introduction .Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Howatt,A.P.R (1984) AHistoryof English Language Teaching .Oxford:Oxford University Press. Johnson, K. (1996) Language Teaching and Skill Learning . Oxford: Blackwell. Krashen, S.(1981) SecondLanguage Acquisition and Second Language Learning . Oxford: Pergamon. Krashen, S.(1982) Principlesand Practice in SecondLanguage Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. Krashen, S. (1985) The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications . London: Longman. Leech, G.(1994)Students’ grammar —teachers’grammar —learners’grammar. InM. Bygate, A.Tonkyn, and E.Williams (eds) Grammarand the Language Teacher (pp.17– 30). Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall. Long, M.(1981)Input, interaction and second language acquisition. InH.Winitz (ed.) NativeLanguage and Foreign Acquisition (pp.259– 278). Annals ofthe New York Academy of Sciences, 379. Long, M.(1991)Focus on form:A design featurein language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot,R. Ginsberg and C.Kramsch (eds) ForeignLanguage Research in Cross-cultural Perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. McLaughlin, B. (1987) Theories of Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold. Mitchell, R.(1994)Grammar, syllabuses and teachers. InM.Bygate, A.Tonkyn, and E. Williams (eds) Grammarand the Language Teacher (pp.90– 104). Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall. Newmark, L.(1966)How not tointerfere in language learning. InternationalJournal of American Linguistics 32 (1), 77–83. Prabhu, N.S (1987) Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Robinson, P.(1997)Individual differences and the fundamental similarity ofimplicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning 47 (1), 45–99. Rutherford, W.(1987) SecondLanguage Grammar: Learning and Teaching. London: Longman. Sampson, N. (1994) English 2000 Book 3. Hong Kong: Macmillan. Schmidt, R.(1993)Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Reviewof Applied Linguistics 13, 206–226. Sharwood Smith, M.(1981)Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics 2 (2), 159–169. Sharwood Smith, M.(1991)Speaking tomany minds: Onthe relevance ofdifferent types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research 7 (2), 118–132. Swan, M. (1995) Practical English Usage (2nd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tonkyn, A.(1994)Introduction: Grammar and the language teacher. InM.Bygate, A. Tonkyn and E.Williams (eds) Grammarand the Language Teacher (pp.1– 14). Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall. Thornbury, S. (1997) About Language . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. White, L.(1987)Against comprehensible input:The input hypothesis and the development of second language competence. Applied Linguistics 8.