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 TMA isproposed 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, since forhundreds of yearsgrammar, and a focuson form,have been atthe heartoflanguage teaching, firstof classicallanguages 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 attentionfrom 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 of grammarand implicit knowl- edge 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 knowl- edge 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, which isthe resultof consciousstudy) 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 of knowledge, i.e.learning cannotbecome acquisition.As aresult, the only value of formalinstruction is in helping todevelop explicit knowledge, which isseen by Krashenas havingvery limited use, forthe purposes of moni- 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, asMitchell (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 of the 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 valuable roleto play in the language learning process.Other factorshave also contributed to a renewed interestin the roleof explicit knowl- edge 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 TMA isproposed 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 TMA constructby 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 knowl- edge. 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 of the 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 of the under- lying 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 of the 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 knowl- edge andthe use madeof suchknowledge —the declarativeand