Classroom Discourse Competence E-Book
Erhalten Sie Zugang zu diesem und mehr als 300000 Büchern ab EUR 5,99 monatlich.
- Herausgeber: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Serie: Studies in English Language Teaching /Augsburger Studien zur Englischdidaktik
- Sprache: Englisch
In language learning contexts, the role of the language teacher is a particularly crucial one: it is the teacher who, through and with their use of (the foreign) language, has a significant influence on the extent to which language learners are linguistically/cognitively activated, and thus determines whether processes of language learning are initiated and promoted, or perhaps even impeded or prevented. Thus, it is of utmost importance for language teachers to acquire a high level of classroom discourse competence (CDC) - a professional competence that goes far beyond the notions of FL proficiency and communicative competence. Located at the intersection of theory, classroom research and practical approaches to (E)FL teacher education, Classroom Discourse Competence: Current Issues in Language Teaching and Teacher Education offers university students, trainee teachers, in-service teachers and teacher educators a comprehensive conceptualization of CDC (Part I). Furthermore, the chapters in this book explore facets of CDC (Part II) and present good-practice examples of CDC development in the context of pre-service teacher education (Part III).
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 464
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022
Das E-Book (TTS) können Sie hören im Abo „Legimi Premium” in Legimi-Apps auf:
Ähnliche
Katrin Thomson (ed.)
Classroom Discourse Competence
Current Issues in Language Teaching and Teacher Education
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24053/9783823393740
© 2022 • Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KGDischingerweg 5 • D-72070 Tübingen
Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetztes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.
Alle Informationen in diesem Buch wurden mit großer Sorgfalt erstellt. Fehler können dennoch nicht völlig ausgeschlossen werden. Weder Verlag noch Autor:innen oder Herausgeber:innen übernehmen deshalb eine Gewährleistung für die Korrektheit des Inhaltes und haften nicht für fehlerhafte Angaben und deren Folgen. Diese Publikation enthält gegebenenfalls Links zu externen Inhalten Dritter, auf die weder Verlag noch Autor:innen oder Herausgeber:innen Einfluss haben. Für die Inhalte der verlinkten Seiten sind stets die jeweiligen Anbieter oder Betreibenden der Seiten verantwortlich.
Internet: www.narr.deeMail: [email protected]
ISSN 2367-3826
ISBN 978-3-8233-8374-1 (Print)
ISBN 978-3-8233-0375-6 (ePub)
Contents
List of Abbreviations
CA
conversation analysis
CEFR
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
CD
classroom discourse
CDC
classroom discourse competence
CM
classroom management
CLIL
content and language integrated learning
CLT
communicative language teaching
EFL
English as a foreign language
EPOSTL
European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages
ESL
English as a second language
FL
foreign language
FLC
foreign language classroom
FLT
foreign language teaching
KMK
Kultusministerkonferenz; Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the 16 Federal States in Germany
LDC
lexical discourse competence
L1
a speaker’s first language (also: native language, mother tongue)
L2
a speaker’s second language (also: foreign language)
MT
micro-teaching
RP
reflective practice
TBLL
task-based language learning
TEFL
teaching English as a foreign language
TL
target language
Transcription Conventions
T
teacher
S/P
student/pupil (not identified)
S1, S2, etc.
identified student
SSS
several students at once or whole class
(//)
simultaneous speech
(2)
length of a pause in seconds
(.)
pause of less than a second
[nods]
words/phrases in these brackets indicate nonverbal or paralinguistic actions (e.g. a speaker’s gestures, voice modulation, actions etc.); these descriptions are given in order to gain a more detailed understanding of the teaching situation at hand
[…]
these square brackets indicate that something has been omitted from the transcript so as to shorten it
Whe:re
a colon after a vowel is used to show that the sound is extended
↑
rising intonation
↓
falling intonation
YOU
words articulated with emphatic stress
Part I – Introduction: Classroom Discourse and Classroom Discourse Competence
Introduction
Classroom Discourse Competence (CDC) in Foreign Language Teaching and Language Teacher Education
1Introduction: Volume Rationale
This volume moves (E)FL teachers’ classroom discourse competence (CDC) center stage and emphasizes CDC’s vital importance to effective foreign language teaching and, consequently, to successful L2 student learning. Classroom discourse, classroom interaction and classroom communication have been in the focus of researchers for many decades (cf. Walsh 2011: 1), with much of the work having come from (Applied) Linguistics. One of the main objectives of this volume is to further the scholarly discussion on classroom discourse and foreign language teacher education, which entails a marked shift of focus from learner to teacher competences. That is to say that in contrast to existing concepts (such as Galaczi/Taylor’s (2018) interactional competence, Johnson’s (1995) classroom communicative competence or Walsh’s (e.g. 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014) classroom interactional competence), classroom discourse competence clearly and solely denotes a competence of foreign language teachers – not learners.
Broadly speaking, language teachers, who have developed CDC, are able to structure and organize classroom discourse through professional use of the L2 (and other languages) in FL teaching and learning contexts. Language teachers’ (verbal) actions and classroom discourse tasks (including those in classroom management), then, are carried out purposefully and in ways that promote student learning. Moreover, teachers’ discoursal practices manifest themselves in classroom context-adapted decision-making, which – among other factors – is based on profound professional knowledge, pedagogic reflections and classroom discourse awareness. This (here only roughly mapped out) understanding of CDC1 rests on the premise that the quality of teacher talk in foreign language classroom discourse is of paramount importance for learners’ FL competence and achievement gains (Thomson 2020a). Teachers’ CDC, thus, goes far beyond the mere notion of L2 proficiency, communicative or interactional competence, as it always entails a pedagogical, professional dimension (cf. Widdowson 2002, Hallet 2006). It is apparent that a core competence like CDC requires theoretical conceptualization as well as systematic development in initial language teacher education. This volume seeks to tackle these issues, but by no means intends to be exhaustive.
Any volume that conceptualizes classroom discourse competence as a professional competence of language teachers is, of course, informed by the large body of international scholarly literature and research on foreign language teaching and learning, second language acquisition, classroom discourse, conversation analysis, language teacher education and other related areas. Tapping into these international perspectives as well, this volume however primarily focuses on the context-specific situation in Germany. Within this national context, language teachers’ professional competences in general have increasingly come into the focus of policy makers, researchers and teacher educators in recent years. This, however, does not necessarily hold true to the same extent for teachers’ professional L2 classroom discourse competences which, so far, have only played a marginal role in pre-service foreign language teacher education – and beyond (cf. García 2017).
2On the Neglected Role of CDC in Language Teacher Education
Teacher education at university level, which is the initial phase of teacher professionalization in Germany, primarily focuses on teacher candidates’ acquisition of specialist knowledge and competences in the school subjects they are going to teach later on. With regard to teaching degree programs in modern foreign languages such as English, French, Italian or Spanish, it is especially within the domains of linguistics, literary, cultural and media studies as well as within the field of general pedagogy and education that professional content knowledge (Fachwissen) and pedagogical knowledge (pädagogisches Wissen), respectively, is acquired. Furthermore, in tailor-made specialist courses on foreign language teaching (e.g. TEFL courses), prospective teachers are expected to gain pedagogical content knowledge (fachdidaktisches Wissen) and develop expertise in various areas of language teaching such as lesson planning, practical implementations of CLT principles (like, for instance, student-activation, task-orientation or differentiation), course book analysis, methodological approaches to teaching literature, culture, grammar, vocabulary etc., to name but a few. While teacher education programs at universities prioritize TEFL students’ acquisition of professional knowledge in the domains mentioned above, a core component of language teacher professionalism has been (and mostly still is) largely neglected: classroom discourse competence (CDC). There are several reasons for this:
The past ten or fifteen years of research on foreign language teacher education in Germany have seen a remarkable increase in theoretical and empirical research activities with a strong focus on foreign language teachers’ professional knowledge. Researchers have been particularly interested in gaining deeper insights into the different types of knowledge (see above) that inform, determine or shape EFL teachers’ classroom actions and decision-making (e.g. Roters et al. 2011, Roters et al. 2013, Kirchhoff 2016). Roters et al. (2013), for instance, first specified the construct components of EFL teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and, subsequently, operationalized this construct for the purpose of testing and evaluating (prospective) teachers’ knowledge in this particular domain. While researching and testing teachers’ professional knowledge is a challenging task in itself, theoretical modelling as well as the practical implementation and systematic assessment of teacher competences (such as CDC) presents even greater challenges to researchers and educators – considering the complexity of the construct ‘competence’ (e.g. Blömeke et al. 2015). Hence, for CDC to gain a more prominent role in EFL teacher education at university, a theoretical model is required which not only provides a structural framework for practical implementation at university level but also allows for operationalization in empirical research. With regard to foreign language teacher education in Germany, such a conceptual model or framework does however not yet exist.
Another reason for teachers’ classroom discourse competences to remain on the sidelines of scholarly interest certainly has to do with a number of already existing concepts (such as Johnson’s (1995) classroom communicative competence or Walsh’s (e.g. 2011) classroom interactional competence), which might give the impression that there is no need to further pursue this line of enquiry if it would perhaps only generate ‘more of the same’ (cf. Bresges et al. 2014: 9). Without a doubt, especially Walsh’s work from an Applied Linguistics-perspective has been a major contribution to this research area and scholarly discussion. It certainly also informs many of the chapters in this volume. However, Walsh’s conceptualization of CIC (classroom interactional competence) also has its limitations. First of all, it is the author himself who considers it to be of a “preliminary” (Walsh 2012: 1) and “initial” quality (Walsh 2012: 1 and 12, 2014: 5). Indeed, CIC is not a comprehensive competence model but rather describes a selection of “interactional strategies” (Walsh 2011: 177) which enable “teacher[s] and learner[s] […] to use interaction as a tool for mediating and assisting learning” (Walsh 2011: 158 and 165, 2012: 1 and 5, 2013: 46 and 51, 2014: 4, Walsh/Li 2016: 495, italics KT). Referring to both teachers and learners, CIC, hence, is not conceptualized as a professional competence of language teachers. “CIC,” Walsh explains, “focuses on the ways in which teachers’ and learners’ interactional decisions and subsequent actions enhance learning and learning opportunity.” (Walsh 2011: 165f.). In his work, the author analyzes “how teachers and learners display CIC” in authentic classroom data (ibid.: 166) and explores some possibilities of “how CIC can be developed in both teachers and learners” (ibid.: 177). Undeniably, this and other concepts are related to CDC in many ways and may also bear resemblance to it as far as terminology, or ‘labelling’, is concerned, but they do not exactly coincide with what CDC as a teacher competence refers to. It is in the nature of things that ‘preliminary’ work calls for further scholarly inquiry along these lines. Against this backdrop, the purpose of this volume, thus, is also to take into account existing concepts as well as the most recent developments in this field (e.g. Kuster et al. 2014, ECML 2019), in order to give further impetus to the scholarly discussion on classroom discourse and foreign language teacher education.
Finally, the neglect of classroom discourse competences in teacher education can also be ascribed to a structural problem of teaching degree programs at universities in Germany. University students of foreign languages, literatures and cultures are usually required to take Sprachpraxiskurse, i.e. foreign language classes on grammar, phonetics/phonology, oral presentation, academic writing etc. – regardless of whether they are enrolled in, for instance, North American Studies, Applied Linguistics or EFL teaching degree programs. Designed to increase students’ general and academic L2 proficiency, these courses do not only provide opportunities for acquiring linguistic knowledge about the target language system but also for improving foreign language skills through active language use and practice in academic contexts. However, specialized courses for teacher candidates are usually not part of these language proficiency programs. Thus, the underlying implication of this approach is either that teachers’ L2 use in classroom settings is devoid of any professional dimension; or, that professional L2 classroom discourse competence somehow automatically evolves from a synthesis of declarative knowledge and foreign language proficiency while teaching, and that it, therefore, does not require any systematic training. Whatever the underlying assumption may be, it is interesting that neither the current national standards of EFL teacher education in Germany (KMK 2019) nor existent models of EFL teachers’ professional competence (e.g. Roters et al. 2014) distinguish between general foreign language proficiency and teachers’ classroom discourse competence. Yet considering the deeper implications of foreign language teachers’ tasks, (verbal) actions and responsibilities in classroom discourse, it becomes apparent that a differentiation between L2 proficiency and CDC is indeed necessary. From a purely language-related point of view, it is a fallacy to assume that a high level of L2 proficiency alone would qualify teachers to master the multitude of diverse and complex discoursal tasks in foreign language classrooms effectively.
‘L2 classroom discourse competence’ has different theoretical underpinnings than ‘foreign language competence’, because – to put it simply – the former is a context-specific professional competence whereas the latter is not. Any conceptualization of CDC and its subcompetences, therefore, presupposes a more detailed description of the discoursal context in which this competence is required – in this case: the educational context of foreign language education which is commonly, although not exclusively, embedded in the physical space of a classroom. In other words: In order to conceptualize CDC, it has to be clear what in fact is actually meant by ‘classroom discourse’. This clarity, however, cannot be taken for granted because the term ‘classroom discourse’ itself is used quite heterogeneously. Thus, it seems not only important but also necessary to shed some light on the term’s meaning and use in the context of this volume.
3Defining ‘Classroom Discourse’
To begin with, the term discourse itself carries different implications. Approaching it from an Applied Linguistics-perspective, ‘discourse’ (sometimes referred to as discourse with a small ‘d’) denotes “a longer stretc[h] of spoken or written language in context” (Walsh 2013: 23), and scholars addressing it from this angle are interested, for instance, in exploring the underlying structures or patterns of a sequence and in analyzing its discursive properties (cf. Hallet 2017, Janks/Locke 2008). On the other hand, ‘discourse’ with a capital ‘D’ draws on Foucault’s work and refers to the sociocultural practices through which social, political, cultural etc. realities (truths and knowledge) are not only represented but also constituted and constructed by members of a discourse community (cf. Hallet 2017, Janks/Locke 2008). Hence, notions of authority, power, and hierarchy are some of the related key concepts, which, if transferred and applied to classroom discourse, allow for a close analysis and understanding of the otherwise hidden or unnoticed dynamics of classroom interaction and communication. With regard to foreign language teacher education and the conceptualization of classroom discourse competence, it is apparent that both meanings of ‘discourse’ need to be taken into account.
As regards the term classroom discourse, matters are equally complex. First of all, ‘classroom discourse’ is often used synonymously and interchangeably with ‘classroom interaction’ and ‘classroom communication’ although these concepts are not congruent (see the contributions of Christ, Gnutzmann, and House in Bausch et al. 2000, Thomson 2020b). Strictly speaking, using them synonymously is not quite accurate, but not always evitable either – be it only for stylistic reasons. Complicating matters further, different meanings of the term ‘classroom discourse’ itself can be found as well. (a) In some publications, it is interpreted rather narrowly in that it only refers to the classroom language or classroom phrases required for managing classrooms. That is, ‘classroom discourse’ used in that sense does not encompass content-related classroom interaction (e.g. Klippel/Doff 32012, Böttger 32020). (b) Others (e.g. Klippel 2003) define ‘classroom discourse’ in terms of language mode and class time: “Everything spoken in an English lesson makes up Classroom Discourse.” (ibid.: 56, italics KT). (c) There seems to be a strong tendency to equate ‘classroom discourse’ with teacher talk. Such approaches do recognize the key role of teachers in classroom discourse, but at the same time also reduce it conceptually to the realms of teacher talk, i.e. to the verbal actions of teachers, not necessarily also considering those of learners (e.g. Deters-Philipp 2018, Klippel 2003). (d) Finally, a broader, more holistic view on ‘classroom discourse’ – which is also favored here – acknowledges the concept’s complexity, multimodality and mediality (e.g. Hallet 2006, Hallet/Königs 2010, Thomson 2020b, Tsui 2008). Tsui (2008: 261), for instance, provides the following definition:
The term ‘classroom discourse’ […] refers to all forms of discourse that take place in the classroom. It encompasses the linguistic as well as the nonlinguistic elements of discourse. The former includes the language used by the teacher and the learners, as well as teacher-learner and learner-learner interactions. The latter includes paralinguistic gestures, prosody, and silence – all of which are integral parts of the discourse.
Another conceptualization of ‘classroom discourse’ (see Fig. 1) ties in with Tsui’s but expands it by taking further important aspects into consideration as well:
Classroom discourse in the context of foreign language education (Thomson 2020b: 7, adapted)
‘Classroom discourse’, as shown in Fig. 1, (#1) includes all interlocutors participating in the discourse processes. While in most cases this usually involves teachers and learners, it could also refer to invited guest speakers, co-teachers in school projects, prospective students etc. (#2) That said, ‘classroom discourse’ encompasses all communicative and interactional processes including monological formats (e.g. teacher talk in an extended input-phase, a student presentation) as well as dialogical formats with two or more interactants (e.g. between teacher—student and student—student). (#3) Furthermore, the notion of ‘classroom discourse’ is not restricted to the lesson context (i.e. the actual class time of usually 45 or 90 minutes) but transcends such temporal boundaries so as to acknowledge the fact that interaction and communication in the L2 may begin even before a lesson starts (e.g. greeting each other, T-S small talk, taking care of managerial issues etc.) and continue after a lesson has ended (e.g. extended teacher feedback to individual students, Q/A on issues discussed during the lesson etc.). As Fig. 1 indicates (see the dotted line and arrows), the lesson context is embedded in the classroom context and both are closely intertwined, i.e. any discourse-related aspect may permeate from one into the other context. That is to say: valuable opportunities for (authentic) language use and language learning can be created beyond the lesson bell if teachers are aware of the broader scope of L2 classroom discourse. (#4) Although ‘classroom discourse’ is often associated with the spoken/oral discourse, it does refer to the written discourse as well. Students’ note-taking, the texts written into their folders, a teacher’s feedback or comments written in the margin of test papers, ideas collected on the blackboard/whiteboard, hand-written notes secretly being passed among students etc. – all of these are forms, some overt/covert, some public/private, that shape and impact classroom discourse. (#5) As far as spoken classroom discourse is concerned, nonverbal and paralinguistic features have to be taken into consideration as well. In language teaching/learning contexts, this is far more than a footnote because, if used effectively, nonverbal elements (such as facial expressions, gestures, gaze, positioning and movements within the physical classroom space), posture and proximity can enhance comprehension, encourage students to participate and help to structure the discourse for language learners. Likewise, paralinguistic aspects (such as pace, pausing, silences, volume, pitch variation, prosody, intonation, articulation etc.) allow teachers to flexibly adjust their utterances to the individual needs and proficiency levels of their learners.
(#6) Classroom discourse, as defined here, comprises on-topic as well as off-topic interaction and communication. On-topic classroom discourse subsumes all forms of content-focused communication/interaction taking place on the main level of discourse (e.g. a class discussion about a literary text or a cultural phenomenon, students explaining structural regularities which they may have discovered in new grammatical forms). Off-topic communication/interaction relates to managerial and procedural issues dealt with on the level of classroom management (e.g. room management, seating arrangements, task instructions, classroom disruptions etc.). This distinction, however, does not imply that only on-topic discourse would facilitate language learning. Quite the contrary (see Thomson’s chapter on “L2 classroom management competence”).
(#7) In classroom discourse, communicative and interactional processes do not take place within a spatial vacuum but rather in a concrete teaching and learning environment with a multitude of materials/resources (e.g. worksheets, posters, coursebooks, dictionaries), media (e.g. blackboard, projector, CD player) and objects (e.g. pieces of classroom furniture). Explicit references to those entities are made frequently, especially in the managerial classroom discourse, and it is often through their integrated use in classroom work that learning and teaching processes develop and proceed. Teaching/learning materials and media in particular can take on an (inter-)active role in the discourse – Hallet (2006: 76) speaks of ‘didactic entities’ (“didaktisch[e] Instanz[en]”) – if they pre-select learning content, provide task instructions and explanations, structure students’ working process and the lesson as such.
(#8) The most important factor in classroom discourse is, of course, language itself. In foreign language education, L2 learning cannot be facilitated if teachers do not use the target language effectively, consistently and with pedagogical intention. Nor does L2 learning take place if language learners, for whatever reasons, do not communicate and interact in the foreign language. Thus, the preferred language to be used is the L2. In foreign language classrooms, though, there is always at least one more language that permeates, influences and shapes the discourse in various ways: the teacher’s and/or students’ L1. That is to say, ‘classroom discourse’ in language teaching/learning contexts does not only refer to the target language to be learned, but to any other language spoken by the teacher and individual students in a particular learner group (e.g. heritage languages, second or other foreign languages already acquired etc.). Hence, in multilingual and/or culturally diverse classrooms, additional languages (L3, L4 etc.) can serve as linguistic resources that teachers and learners can tap into. It is for this particular reason that the term ‘L2 classroom discourse’ finds its German equivalent in fremdsprachenunterrichtlicher Diskurs – rather than fremdsprachlicher Unterrichtsdiskurs, although both types exist and may overlap, of course. This distinction is a crucial one because it takes account of the language diversity that teachers and students may potentially encounter in foreign language classroom discourse, and it acknowledges the important role that especially the L1 may play in certain lesson contexts. Thus, it rejects the idea that L2 classroom discourse solely encompasses interaction and communication in the foreign language. From a teacher’s perspective, mastering all classroom discourse-related teacher tasks in ways that are conducive to student learning thus requires a high level of L2 classroom discourse competence (CDC). This term, then, has its equivalent in fremdsprachenunterrichtliche Diskurskompetenz – not fremdsprachliche Unterrichtsdiskurskompetenz.
4Structure and Content: The Contributions in this Volume
This volume on classroom discourse competence (CDC) is divided into three parts and consists of a total of fifteen chapters. The contributing authors in this book approach CDC from different angles and discuss selected issues. What all of these contributions share, however, is their focus on English language teaching/learning and the question of how CDC and its related sub-competences can be promoted in the context of pre-service EFL teacher education at university level.
The opening section (Part I – Introduction: Classroom Discourse and Classroom Discourse Competence) lays the theoretical and conceptual foundation of this book.
Following this introductory chapter, which presents the rationale and scope of this volume, the editor then addresses the issue of CDC development in language teacher education. Katrin Thomson argues that apart from general foreign language competence, (prospective) language teachers also need to acquire CDC since target language proficiency as such does not enable language teachers to professionally perform the complex discoursal tasks required of them in the FL classroom. Thomson first proposes a revised and expanded model of FL teachers’ professional competence and then, against this backdrop, ‘zooms into’ this model to present her conceptualization and definition of CDC.
In the second section (Part II – Exploring the Facets of L2 Classroom Discourse Competence), the focus is on selected classroom discourse phenomena and specific sub-dimensions of CDC which (prospective) EFL teachers are eventually required to master.
The chapter by Anna Rosen illustrates the vital importance of high-quality teacher talk for students’ development of conversational skills in the target language. Drawing on research findings which suggest that conversational features (such as discourse markers, question tags or stance markers) are underused in teacher talk, Rosen shows in her transcript analyses that when they do occur they are likely to lead to learner uptake in classroom discourse. Based on her findings the author points out some of the implications for English language teaching and teacher education. Among other recommendations, Rosen suggests that pre-service teacher education programs need to provide possibilities for awareness-raising and the acquisition of knowledge about conversational features and discourse strategies.
Ralf Gießler focuses on lexical classroom discourse (LCD), i.e. a specific type of classroom discourse that aims to support students’ lexical learning. As regards the language learners’ perspective, developing lexical competence, the author argues, implies more than learning about word meanings. Foreign language learners also need to gain a deep understanding of a word’s form and use, its pronunciation, collocations etc. From a teacher’s perspective, mastering the complex and challenging tasks of ‘robust vocabulary instruction’, thus, requires a high command of LCD skills. In the context of university-level teacher education, these skills – the author suggests – can be developed if prospective teachers are given opportunities to explore and discuss the dimensions of vocabulary teaching/learning in L2 classroom discourse. As Gießler’s chapter and case studies in particular show, this can be achieved by using video-recorded lesson sequences in combination with individual written analyses (IWAs) of these vignettes. Video-based classroom data allows student teachers to investigate and reflect upon the teachers’ classroom discourse moves that may support (or hinder) lexical learning in specific classroom situations. Considering the importance of lexical learning in foreign language education, this chapter underlines the necessity to sensitize and prepare prospective teachers for the challenging tasks they will encounter in L2 lexical classroom discourse.
In their chapter, Jochen Baier and Emily Brehm address the challenges that EFL teacher face in L2 literary classroom discourse. Structuring, orchestrating and shaping whole-class discussions about literary texts requires professional discourse competences which prospective teachers, the authors argue, need to develop systematically. Baier and Brehm emphasize that even with a native speaker-like command of English, scaffolding literary classroom discourse is quite difficult as it goes far beyond the notion of merely initiating follow-up communication with learners after having read a text. Apart from linguistic aspects, these challenges arise, they explain, from the theoretical frictions between opposing literary theories (such as New Criticism and Response Theory), which ultimately also inform different methodological approaches to teaching (with) literature in foreign language classrooms. Teachers, for instance, need to find ways to integrate and ‘reconcile’ cognitive-analytical and individual response-oriented approaches in literary classroom discourse. Further issues, such as the heterogeneity within learner groups or students’ altered reading habits in the era of digitalization, present further challenges that teachers are required to respond to in literary discourse. The use of scaffolding techniques such as prompting can be effective means to enhance student learning. Baier and Brehm categorize different types of prompts and discuss their functions and potentially beneficial effects on student-activation in L2 literary discourse. Using Kate Chopin’s “The Story of an Hour” as an example, the authors illustrate how prompts can be used to get language learners engaged in classroom discourse. Prospective EFL teachers, they conclude, would profit from training programs in which the development of L2 literary discourse competence, including the effective use of scaffolding strategies like prompting, would play a more prominent role.
Turning to another subtype of CDC, Katrin Thomson focuses on teachers’ discourse competence in L2 classroom management contexts. In light of the conceptual changes that the notion of ‘classroom management’ (CM) has undergone since the 1960s, Thomson pleads for a stronger consideration of CM issues in the subject-specific domain of EFL teacher education. Her conceptualization of L2 CM competence challenges previous views that assume that ‘classroom management’ is exclusively linked to teachers’ general pedagogical knowledge. The author pinpoints the distinctive characteristics of CM discourse in ELT and shows that, in spite of the concept’s transdisciplinary nature, a subject-specific approach to developing L2 CM competences is required as well if prospective EFL teachers are supposed to master the multitude of discourse tasks which they will encounter in managerial contexts.
Charlott Falkenhagen and Sieglinde Spath focus on teacher discourse competences in CLIL settings. Based on the notion that CLIL contexts require specific professional discourse competences, the authors use authentic classroom data from CLIL music/English lessons in order to examine the functions and effects of certain discourse features (such as the amount of teacher talking time, teacher code-switching and the implementation of IRF patterns) in this pedagogical context. In view of the particular challenges that L2 learners encounter in CLIL classrooms, Falkenhagen and Spath stress the importance of teachers’ CLIL discourse competence and argue that EFL/CLIL teachers require professional training to successfully combine language and content learning.
Shifting the focus to a different subtype of classroom discourse competence, Katalin Schober’s chapter draws attention to the challenges that L2 classroom discourse in inclusive settings presents to foreign language teacher and learners alike. Focusing on hearing-impaired language learners in particular, Schober explains why EFL teachers need to acquire not only expert knowledge on inclusive classroom discourse, but also the skills and competences which enable teachers to use inclusive discourse strategies in order to meet and effectively respond to the special needs of hearing-impaired learners. For instance, language teachers in inclusive settings need to develop a nuanced understanding of certain discourse phenomema (such as code-switching and echoing) which have been subject to much critical discussion in other language teaching contexts. Emphasizing the importance of EFL teachers’ reflective-interactional competence and discoursal flexibility in inclusive classroom settings, the author pleads for a stronger and more adequate consideration of inclusive classroom discourse issues in pre-service teacher education programs at university level.
The seven chapters in the third section (Part III – Practical Approaches to CDC Development in Pre-Service Teacher Education) present a variety of digital tools and resources as well as field-tested seminar modules and course concepts, all of which have been designed to foster prospective teachers’ CDC. The contributions in this section provide valuable insights into the practical work of TEFL teacher educators at university level, which may serve as inspiration for teacher educators and/or teacher trainers in similar settings. What is more, these contributions demonstrate that CDC development at pre-service stage has recently received somewhat greater attention – be it in the context of single seminar sessions, supervised school placements or full-fledged TEFL courses that are dedicated entirely to fostering student teachers’ CDC.
Addressing the issue of technologically and digitally supported teacher education, René Koglbauer, Jon Haines and Paul Seedhouse introduce the Video Enhanced Observation (VEO) app. The authors explain how the app works, describe its features and illustrate ways of using the app in various contexts and phases of foreign language teacher education. Focusing particularly on the observation and analysis of classroom discourse and teacher talk, the video-recorded classroom data may serve as a basis for critical self-reflection and a constructive, professional dialogue between observed (pre-service) teachers and their teacher educators. Drawing on the concept of reflective practice, Koglbauer and his co-authors argue that using video-recordings of student teachers’ own teaching experience in post-lesson analysis and discussion provides valuable opportunities for systematic, structured and focused reflection-on-action as observed teachers do not have to rely on their memory but can relate to empirical evidence of their actual teaching practices in language classrooms.
Karen Glaser introduces the reader to a videography research project on classroom discourse competence (CDC) which primary school TEFL students conduct in the context of a school internship module. Glaser describes the general structure and objectives of her students’ research projects and, on the basis of two select student samples, illustrates how specific videography assignments on teachers’ instruction-giving and feedback behavior respectively can foster students’ analytical and reflective skills with regard to classroom discourse phenomena in the EFL primary school classroom. Referring to the positive outcome of these videography assignments, Glaser concludes that small-scale research projects on classroom interaction, teacher and student talk – if preceded or accompanied by university TEFL seminars/lectures – can foster student teachers’ classroom discourse competence and raise classroom discourse awareness.
Holger Limberg discusses the potential of classroom corpora in EFL teacher education at university level. Focusing on primary school education, he argues that a qualitative approach to lesson transcripts increases student teachers’ professional knowledge and leads to a deeper understanding of how EFL primary school teachers implement the principles and methods of FLT in classroom discourse. Limberg uses transcript samples from the Primary English Classroom Corpus (PECC) to illustrate how analyzing and discussing authentic spoken discourse can foster prospective teachers’ awareness of discourse patterns in primary school language education. Classroom corpora, Limberg points out, are a valuable tool for EFL teacher professionalization as they provide student teachers with opportunities to explore specific aspects of classroom discourse, analyze patterns of use and discuss how teachers’ verbal actions may affect student learning.
In a similar vein, Olaf Jäkel also focuses on the use of classroom corpora in language teacher education. Drawing on transcript data from the author’s own classroom corpus (FLECC), Jäkel provides detailed analyses of year 5 lesson transcripts. He ‘revisits an old acquaintance’, as the author himself puts it: the IRF exchange structure, which has attracted much scholarly interest for decades both in Applied Linguistics and in foreign language education research. The IRF pattern has also been at the centre of much critical debate. On the one hand, the IRF exchange structure has been criticized not only for rendering classroom discourse monotonous, mechanical, and predictable, but also for minimizing opportunities for genuine communication in language classrooms. On the other hand, it has been noted that in certain lesson contexts its use can support students’ language learning (see also Limberg’s chapter). Jäkel returns to this particular discourse pattern in order to illustrate that the IRF structure can be used to serve multiple purposes (such as giving form- and content-focused feedback, expressing appreciation of learner contributions, incorporating repair work), provided that EFL teachers are aware of these different functions. Taking transcript analyses of IRF sequences as an example, Jäkel emphasizes the merits of using authentic classroom discourse corpora and – like Limberg – pleads for an increased use of such data in university TEFL seminars.
Gabriele Blell and Friederike von Bremen describe the purpose and design of the VirtU learning module project in which student teachers of TEFL observe, analyze and discuss video vignettes recorded in authentic EFL classrooms. Aiming to promote prospective teachers’ reflective competence with regard to classroom discourse, the core component of this project lies in the use of tailor-made educational resources (tasks and guiding questions for video analysis and reflection). In their chapter, the authors explain the theoretical and conceptual underpinnings of their task designs and then present two specific samples which focus on different teacher tasks in L2 classroom discourse: giving instructions and hosting a class discussion.
Having made classroom discourse competence one of her major scholarly concerns not only in research but also in practical EFL teacher education at pre-service stage, Katrin Thomson presents ClaDis – a course concept which she designed and implemented at university level to foster student teachers’ CDC. Drawing on key concepts which presently inform language teacher education (including the construct of teachers’ professional knowledge, professional vision, data-led classroom research and reflective practice), Thomson explains the complex theoretical underpinnings and conceptual framework of ClaDis. First presenting the three pillars which form the foundation of ClaDis (knowledge—reflection—practice), Thomson then shows what specifically each of these pillars entails in terms of actual course work and TEFL students’ competence gains. In her chapter, she incorporates selected extracts from two student teacher samples (by Anna Bichlmaier and Chiara Ballmann-Noukra) in order to illustrate the potential of this course concept to effectively and sustainably contribute to the development of CDC in the context of initial teacher education. Bichlmaier transcribed a self-selected video vignette and analyzed the teacher’s instruction-giving while teaching 9th-grade students (‘other-data’). Ballmann-Noukra transcribed and analyzed a video-recorded micro-teaching sequence (simulating a lesson lead-in in 12th grade) which she had prepared and subsequently taught in one of the ClaDis seminar sessions (‘self-data’). With the intention of giving greater recognition to students’ course work and achievements, both students were invited by the author to publish the written accounts of their individual course assignments as online supplements to this chapter. Full-length versions of their papers are accessible via the publisher’s website (www.meta.narr.de/9783823383741/Zusatzmaterial.zip).
In the last chapter of this section, Sandra Stadler-Heer presents a course concept which aims to foster prospective primary school teachers’ L2 classroom discourse competence through reflective practice (RP) and the use of video-taped micro-teaching (MT) sequences. Course participants, Stadler-Heer explains, are required to design and perform two different MT sequences, each one embedded in teaching/learning contexts that are characteristic for the EFL primary school classroom: story-telling and game-based teaching/learning. The course concept, thus, combines aspects of lesson planning, teaching English to young learners and L2 classroom discourse. Focusing particulary on the development of TEFL students’ reflective competences, Stadler-Heer gives special attention to the various ways of how this can be achieved in the context of pre-service language teacher education (i.e. through post-MT ad-hoc self-reflections, oral peer reflections, written self-reflections using the stimulated recall method). A full transcript of a student’s ad-hoc self-reflection and further material has been made available by the author and can be downloaded from the publisher’s website (www.meta.narr.de/9783823383741/Zusatzmaterial.zip).
*
In a volume that addresses theoretical, conceptual as well as practical issues of classroom discourse competence and EFL teacher education, it is clearly impossible to cover every facet of the topic or to include the entire body of literature that informs the academic discourse in this field. Thus, this book cannot and does not claim to be exhaustive. It is the editor’s hope, however, that the chapters in this volume will both enrich and further advance the scholarly discussion of CDC. TEFL researchers, university teacher educators, teacher trainers and (prospective) language teachers will hopefully find value in this volume as it may provide them with new insights about the complexity of teachers’ CDC and/or fresh ideas for the various professional contexts individual readers are involved in.
Bibliography
Bausch, Karl-Richard et al. (Eds.) (2000). Interaktion im Kontext des Lehrens und Lernens fremder Sprachen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Blömeke, Sigrid et al. (2015). “Beyond Dichotomies: Competence Viewed as a Continuum.” Zeitschrift für Psychologie 223:1, 3–13.
Böttger, Heiner (2020). Englisch lernen in der Grundschule. 3rd, rev. ed. Bad Heilbrunn: Julius Klinkhardt.
Bresges, André et al. (2014). “Einleitung.” In: Bresges, André et al. (Eds.), Kompetenzen diskursiv: Terminologische, exemplarische und strukturelle Klärungen in der LehrerInnenbildung. Münster: Waxmann, 9–14.
Christ, Herbert (2000). “Die Dimension ‘Interaktion’ bei der Erforschung des Lehrens und Lernens fremder Sprachen.” In: Bausch, Karl-Richard et al. (Eds.), 59–67.
Deters-Philipp, Ann-Cathrin (2018). Lehrersprache im Englischunterricht an deutschen Grundschulen. Eine Interviewstudie mit Lehrkräften. Münster: Waxmann.
ECML European Centre for Modern Languages (2019). Teacher Competences for Languages in Education: Conclusions of the Project. Council of Europe. Online. URL: www.ecml.at/Portals/1/5MTP/Bleichenbacher/CEF RLT-conclusions-EN.pdf?ver=2019-11-29-150323-533 (last access: 11.10.2021).
Galaczi, Evelina/Taylor, Lynda (2018). “Interactional Competence: Conceptualisations, Operationalisations, and Outstanding Questions.” Language Assessment Quarterly 15:3, 219–236.
García, Marta (2017). “Unterrichtsinteraktion.” In: Surkamp, Carola (Ed.), Metzler Lexikon Fremdsprachendidaktik. Ansätze – Methoden – Grundbegriffe. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler, 361.
Gnutzmann, Claus (2000). “Interaktion im Fremdsprachenunterricht: Forschungsgegenstand und Zielsetzung.” In: Bausch, Karl-Richard et al. (Eds.), 89–96.
Hallet, Wolfgang (2017). “Diskursfähigkeit.” In: Surkamp, Carola (Ed.), Metzler Lexikon Fremdsprachendidaktik. Ansätze – Methoden – Grundbegriffe. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler, 48–49.
Hallet, Wolfgang (2006). Didaktische Kompetenzen. Lehr- und Lernprozesse erfolgreich gestalten. Stuttgart: Klett.
Hallet, Wolfgang/Königs, Frank G. (2010). “Classroom discourse und Interaktion.” In: Hallet, Wolfgang/Königs, Frank G. (Eds.), Handbuch Fremdsprachendidaktik. Seelze-Velber: Klett Kallmeyer, 190–195.
House, Juliane (2000). “Interaktion und Fremdsprachenunterricht.” In: Bausch, Karl-Richard et al. (Eds.), 111–118.
Janks, Hilary/Locke, Terry (2008). “Discourse Awareness in Education: A Critical Perspective.” In: Hornberger, Nancy H. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Vol. 6: Knowledge about Language. 2nd ed. Boston: Springer, 31–43.
Johnson, Karen E. (1995). Understanding Communication in Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kirchhoff, Petra (2016). “Was sollte eine gute Englischlehrkraft wissen? Über die Auswahl von Items im FALKO-E Test zum fachspezifischen Professionswissen.” In: Legutke, Michael K./Schart, Michael (Eds.), Fremdsprachendidaktische Professionsforschung: Brennpunkt Lehrerbildung. Tübingen: Narr Verlag, 75–98.
Klippel, Friederike (2003). “Teaching English – Teacher Language in Primary School.” In: Hermes, Liesel/Klippel, Friederike (Eds.), Früher oder später? Englisch in der Grundschule und Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht. Berlin: Langenscheidt, 53–68.
Klippel, Friederike/Doff, Sabine (2012). Englischdidaktik. Praxishandbuch für die Sekundarstufe I und II. 3rd ed. Berlin: Cornelsen.
KMK (2019). Ländergemeinsame inhaltliche Anforderungen für die Fachwissenschaften und Fachdidaktiken in der Lehrerbildung. Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 16.10.2008 i.d.F. vom 16.05.2019. Online. URL: www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/ 2008/2008_10_16-Fachprofile-Lehrerbildung.pdf (last access: 11.10.2021).
Kuster, Wilfrid et al. (2014). Berufsspezifische Sprachkompetenzprofile für Lehrpersonen für Fremdsprachen. PH St. Gallen. Projektwebsite. Online. URL: www.phsg.ch/de/forschung/projekte/berufsspezifische-sprach kompetenzprofile-fuer-lehrpersonen-fuer-fremdsprachen (last access: 11.10.2021).
Roters, Bianca et al. (2014). “Professionelle Kompetenz von angehenden Englischlehrkräften (PKE).” Poster präsentiert auf der Eröffnungsfeier des Interdisziplinären Zentrums für empirische LehrerInnen- und Unterrichtsforschung (IZeF) der Universität zu Köln am 17.01.2014. Online. URL: www.hf.uni-koeln.de/36292 (last access: 11.10.2021).
Roters, Bianca et al. (2013). “Fachdidaktisches Wissen angehender Englischlehrkräfte – Theoretischer Rahmen und empirische Ergebnisse zur Struktur eines Testinstruments.” Lehrerbildung auf dem Prüfstand 6:2, 155–177.
Roters, Bianca et al. (2011). “Professionelles Wissen von Studierenden des Lehramts Englisch.” In: Blömeke, Sigrid et al. (Eds.), Kompetenzen von Lehramtsstudierenden in gering strukturierten Domänen. Erste Ergebnisse aus TEDS-LT. Münster: Waxmann, 77–99.
Thomson, Katrin (2020a). “Teacher Talk matters: Lehrersprache im Englischunterricht lernförderlich einsetzen.” Themenheft ‘Unterrichtsdiskurs’. Praxis Fremdsprachenunterricht: Englisch 17:4, 4–8.
Thomson, Katrin (2020b). “Classroom Discourse im fremdsprachenunterrichtlichen Kontext: Gegenstandsbereiche – Einflussfaktoren – Kompetenzentwicklung.” Basisartikel. Themenheft ‘Unterrichtsdiskurs’. Praxis Fremdsprachenunterricht 17:4, 6–9.
Thomson, Katrin (in this volume). “Conceptualizing Teachers’ L2 Classroom Discourse Competence (CDC): A Key Competence in Foreign Language Teaching.” In: Ibid. (Ed.), Classroom Discourse Competence: Current Issues in Language Teaching and Teacher Education. Tübingen: Narr.
Tsui, Amy B.M. (2008). “Classroom Discourse: Approaches and Perspectives.” In: Hornberger, Nancy H. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Vol. 6: Knowledge about Language. 2nd ed. Boston: Springer, 261–272.
Walsh, Steve (2014). “Developing Classroom Interactional Competence.” Language Issues 25:1, 4–8.
Walsh, Steve (2013). Classroom Discourse and Teacher Development. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Walsh, Steve (2012). “Conceptualising Classroom Interactional Competence.” Novitas: Research on Youth and Language 6:1, 1–14.
Walsh, Steve (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in Action. London/New York: Routledge.
Walsh, Steve/Li, Li (2016). “Classroom Talk, Interaction and Collaboration.” In: Hall, Graham (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teaching. London/New York: Routledge, 486–498.
Widdowson, H.G. (2002). “Language Teaching: Defining the Subject.” In: Trappes-Lomax, Hugh/Ferguson, Gibson (Eds.), Language in Language Teacher Education. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 67–81.
Conceptualizing Teachers’ L2 Classroom Discourse Competence (CDC): A Key Competence in Foreign Language Teaching
Existing models of FL teachers’ professional competence mark L2 competence as an important component of language teacher professionalism – along with the different types of professional knowledge as defined by Shulman (1986, 1987). Target language proficiency as such, however, does not automatically enable language teachers to professionally perform the complex discoursal tasks required of them in the L2 classroom. FL teachers also need to develop L2 classroom discourse competence (CDC) if interactional and communicative processes in classroom contexts are supposed to be effective and promote student learning. In this chapter, I will first revisit existing conceptualizations of language teachers’ professional competence in order to explain the rationale for expanding and revising those so as to mark CDC not simply as an additional but arguably the most crucial competence in foreign language teaching. I will then present my conceptualization of CDC and – synthesizing the issues discussed here – conclude this chapter with a definition of CDC.
1Introduction: (Language) Teachers’ Professional Competence
The past ten or so years have seen a marked shift from conceptualizing, assessing and evaluating learnercompetences towards defining and researching teachers’ professional competences – especially within the academic fields of general pedagogy and education (cf. König 2014: 22), but also increasingly so in individual subject domains such as TEFL. This ever-growing interest in teachers’ professional competences is, for instance, reflected in scholarly discussions about how ‘professional competence’ can be defined and conceptualized. Aiming to systematically capture those factors and aspects that shape and influence teachers’ professional competence, generic competence models have been developed (e.g. Baumert/Kunert 2006, Blömeke 2011, Blömeke et al. 2015). These are based on two general notions: (1) ‘Professional competence’ is a highly complex, multidimensional construct. It develops gradually and along a continuum. (2) Teachers’ cognitive resources (i.e. different types of knowledge), affective dispositions (i.e. teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, values etc.) and skills (i.e. teachers’ abilities to strategically and adequately use their intrapersonal resources in specific classroom situations) need to be considered as core dimensions of teacher professionalism (cf. Baumert/Kunter 2006: 481).
There is widespread consensus that teachers’ professional knowledge plays a crucial role in gaining professional competence. Thus, in seeking to further define teachers’ complex professional competence in the school subjects they teach, much attention has been directed to conceptualizing and researching teachers’ professional knowledge and its subtypes. In the scholarly discourse in Germany, Shulman’s (1987) taxonomy with its distinction between content knowledge (CK, Fachwissen), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK, fachdidaktisches Wissen) and general pedagogical knowledge (GPK, allgemeines pädagogisches Wissen) has proven to be most influential in the past few years (see Fig. 1).
Teachers’ Professional Knowledge (based on Shulman 1987)
Here, Shulman’s work has prompted researchers of various academic disciplines to specify (and test) these different knowledge repositories. With regard to TEFL and EFL teacher education, the research projects by Roters et al. (2011), Roters et al. (2013) and Kirchhoff (2016, 2017) are particularly noteworthy as they have made a major contribution to gaining a more precise understanding of what constitutes EFL teachers’ professional knowledge. Research along these lines is increasingly developing in Germany (cf. Legutke/Schart 2016: 13).
For a more differentiated and comprehensive exploration of EFL teachers’ professional competence, however, other components than Shulman’s categories have to be taken into account as well. This includes, first and foremost, teachers’ classroom discourse competence (CDC) which is considered here as a key competence of foreign language teachers. Going far beyond the mere notion of teachers’ L2 proficiency, CDC denotes language teachers’ competence “to structure and organize classroom discourse through professional use of the L2 (and other languages) in FL teaching and learning contexts. Language teachers’ (verbal) actions and classroom discourse tasks, then, are carried out purposefully and in ways that promote student learning. Moreover, teachers’ discoursal practices manifest themselves in classroom context-adapted decision-making, which – among other factors – is based on extensive professional knowledge, pedagogic reflections and discourse awareness.” (Thomson, “Introduction”, this volume).2 Such an understanding of CDC clearly implies that mastering classroom discourse tasks in the foreign language classroom requires more than just general target language proficiency. There is a pedagogical, i.e. professional dimension to CDC, which however has received too little attention in the scholarly discussion so far.
2Overview: Existing Concepts, Recent Developments and Current Challenges
2.1Target Language Proficiency vs. L2 Classroom Discourse Competence – Terminological Issues
In scholarly discussions about FL-related dimensions of language teachers’ professional competence, a plethora of different terms and concepts has emerged. These include, among others: teachers’ ‘linguistic skills’, ‘linguistic abilities’, ‘linguistic competences’ (all in Kuster et al. 2014a), ‘classroom interactional competence’ (Walsh 2006 and ff.), ‘target language proficiency’ (Richards et al. 2013), ‘profession-related language competence’ (Kuster et al. 2014a), ‘classroom discourse competence’ (Thomson 2020a), or with regard to publications in German, ‘(didaktische) kommunikative Kompetenzen (Hallet 2006), ‘Sprachkönnen in der Fremdsprache’ (KMK 2019), ‘Sprachkompetenz’ (Bleichenbacher et al. 2016), ‘sprachpraktische Kompetenzen’, ‘sprachpraktische Fähigkeiten’ (both in Roters et al. 2013), ‘sprachliche Handlungsfähigkeit’ (Roters et al. 2014) and ‘fremdsprachenunterrichtliche Diskurskompetenz’ (see Thomson, “Introduction” in this volume) – to name but a few. This variety of different labels is an indicator of a certain terminological and conceptual indeterminacy as regards the question of what language-related aspects actually contribute to teachers’ professionalism. After all, terms such as ‘language proficiency’ or ‘linguistic skills’ on the one hand carry different implications than, for instance, ‘profession-related language competence’ or ‘classroom discourse competence’ on the other: the latter denote context-specific professional competences with a clearly marked pedagogical dimension. This dimension, however, is missing from the first two terms (‘language proficiency’, ‘linguistic skills’), as is the aspect of context-specificity, i.e. the context of the language classroom, including its related learning environments beyond those spatial boundaries. Hence, it would be somewhat problematic to use these terms synonymously or to ignore the professional, pedagogical dimension in teachers’ classroom discourse competence altogether.
This however seems to be the case, for instance, in the KMK3 National Standards for Teacher Education in Foreign Languages in Germany (KMK 2019), where only one reference is made – not to FL teachers’ professional classroom discourse competence but – to the level of L2 proficiency that pre-service teachers are expected to have reached by the end of phase 1: “University graduates have acquired in-depth linguistic knowledge [‘Sprachwissen’] and ‘native speaker-like’ L2 proficiency [‘‘nativnahes’ Sprachkönnen’]; they are able to maintain this level and constantly refresh their foreign language competence.” (ibid.: 44; translation KT). Apparently, the underlying assumption here is that, from a linguistic point of view, native speaker-like (or C2+) proficiency in the target language is the determining factor for successful or effective teaching. The quoted passage above also suggests that EFL teachers’ preferably ‘native-like’ L2 language use within classroom settings is apparently no different from target language use in everyday real-world communication – or, if this distinction was indeed implied in the above quote, that teacher candidates would somehow automatically be able to (a) recognize these differences and (b) transform general L2 use into “pedagogically processed” language (Widdowson 2002: 77), i.e. the kind of language that is conducive to FL learning in classroom settings, the kind of language that activates learners, the kind of language “which has been pedagogically treated so that it is made less alien and more accessible to learners” (ibid.: 78).
The importance of this ‘professional dimension’ in teacher talk and teacher-navigated classroom discourse has, by and large, been neglected in teacher education programs and in conceptualizations of EFL teachers’ professional competence as well. More than fifteen years ago, Hallet (2006), for instance, emphasized the vital importance of teachers’ ‘professional discourse competence’, yet at the same time found that most competence models up until then did not even explicitly mention it. The author, therefore, concluded:
Actually, […] [discourse competence] deserves to receive more attention and ought to be given a central position in every competence model, given the fact that all processes of teaching and learning are language-based and […] therefore rely on continual communication and negotiation between all classroom participants. […] A precise description of this competence is required for it to gain a professional dimension and to move beyond the notion of everyday communication.” (Hallet 2006: 127, 129, 130; translation and emphasis KT)
In foreign language teacher education and research in Germany, both of these calls have remained unanswered so far. While Shulman’s taxonomy (see Fig. 1) has been expanded to now also include a ‘linguistic component’ (“Sprachliche Handlungsfähigkeit”) in Roters et al.’s (2014) model of EFL teachers’ professional competence (see Fig. 2), the necessary distinction between teachers’ general foreign language communicative competence and a professional L2 classroom discourse competence is not made there.
EFL Teachers’ Professional Competence and Professional Knowledge (Roters et al. 2014, based on Shulman 1987)
