Understanding concepts means knowing what the concepts mean in specific instructional contexts

Practice-specific knowledge is also important because understanding a concept requires a depth of knowledge of what that concept means and how it is used in specific contexts.

This is especially true in terms of teaching: “ideas about the nature of educational theory are always ideas about the nature of educational practice and always incorporate a latent conception of how, in practice, theory should be used” (Carr, 1986: 177). Being able to

give an explicit description of a concept does not mean that you know how to use it for teaching. “Simply knowing that metaphor can be a useful pedagogical tool, for instance, does not go far in helping beginning teachers select helpful and appropriate metaphors for teaching specific topics” (McDiarmid, Ball & Anderson, 1989: 195). Consider the following excerpt from a Monty Python sketch of a TV program called “How To Do It”:

Alan: How to play the flute. (picking up a flute) Well here you are. You blow there and you move your fingers up and down here.

Noel: Great, great, Alan…

(Chapman, Cleese, Gilliam, Idle, Jones, & Palin, 1989: 63-4)

While this does distinguish playing the flute from playing the violin, it is a fundamentally superficial conception of “playing the flute” and includes none of the detailed information one would need to actually learn how to play the flute. In the same vein, to really know a concept such as “negotiation of meaning” or “ZPD” would mean that one would know what these conceptions mean in specific contexts. Without being able to recognize such concepts in terms of teaching practice, activities, and assessment tools, one cannot be said to really know these concepts. Instead, this would be indicative of a superficial conceptual knowledge similar to Alan’s knowledge of playing the flute.

Unfortunately, a growing body of research shows that the conceptions learned in teacher education are relatively superficial. While teachers learn to discuss academic conceptions in SLTE programs, they may not learn what these concepts mean in terms of teaching or what (in detail) these conceptions can be used for in teaching (Leinhardt, 1988; Mandl, Gruber & Renkl, 1996). “There is also a strong likelihood that even if novices are persuaded by their faculty’s ideas and are persuaded to adopt a different frame of reference to thinking about teaching, they will not know what actually to do to enact these new ideas” (Kennedy, 1999: 71). Studies of teachers who have attended teacher education programs stressing constructivist approaches to teaching show that after leaving the programs, these teachers still had little idea of what constructivist concepts meant in terms of everyday teaching activities such as planning, instruction and assessment (Cook, Smagorinsky, Fry, Konopak, & Moore, 2002; Smagorinsky, Gibson, Bickmore, Moore, & Cook, 2004; Smagorinsky, Lakly, & Johnson, 2002). Kyraicou and Cheng (1993) looked at 16 novice teachers’ views of humanistic teaching. While their answers to a questionnaire indicated they held strongly humanistic conceptions of teaching, subsequent interviews about their answers revealed that they had little idea what such views would mean for teaching.

[S]tudent teachers generally held positive attitudes towards the humanistic approach, but during their teaching practice there was an evident recognition of a distinction between holding such attitudes as ‘ideals’ and the difficulty, or even inappropriateness, of such attitudes being reflected in their actual behaviour when constrained by the constraints and realities of classroom life (Kyraicou & Cheng, 1993: 163).

A further problem with this situation is that it may lead to frustration on the part of teachers who wish to use academic concepts they have learned in teacher education in their teaching, but find they do not know what the conceptions mean in practice. For example, Spalding (1997) studied one beginning English teacher. The teacher began the year firmly focusing on the academic content of the class. However, she found that she did not know how to implement this approach without causing major problems with class management and student-teacher relationships. Therefore, “Celia shifted her focus from literature to the well-being of the ‘whole child.’... But in restructuring her teaching to

meet her student’s needs, her own needs for intellectual stimulation and innovation were not being met. Although her students appeared to be thriving in her classroom, Celia was not” (Spalding, 1997: 184). After this year the teacher was strongly considering leaving the profession.

Research on SLTE also shows a lack of sophisticated knowledge in terms of teaching.

For example, while many teachers may have a general idea of the role of communication in L2 teaching, studies have shown that teachers are often not able to distinguish communicative from non-communicative activities. Mitchell (1988) interviewed 59 foreign language teachers and found (a) a wide variation in their ability to explicitly define “communication” and (b) an inability to make clear distinctions between activities involving communication and those not. Nunan (1987) interviewed and observed lessons of five ESL teachers. In the interviews the teachers showed solid conceptual knowledge of communicative language teaching (CLT). The lessons observed also seemed, at first glance, to be examples of CLT in practice. Nunan discovered, however, that “in terms of the patterns of classroom interaction, there was little genuine communication between teacher and student (or for that matter, between student and student). There was also a great deal of ‘traditional’ language work” (Nunan, 1987: 141). Sakui (2004) interviewed 12 EFL teachers and then observed 3 of these over a school year. She found that when discussing general principles, the EFL teachers’ conceptions of CLT seemed very similar to academic definitions. However, their practice revealed very different understandings of CLT. For example, one of the ideas underlying CLT is that through interaction in the target language learners will notice and acquire grammatical knowledge. The teachers, while valuing communication, felt that the EFL students needed to be taught all the grammar needed before engaging in communicative activities; a direct contradiction to CLT principles. In addition, Karavas-Doukas (1996) investigated 37 ESL teachers’

conceptions of CLT. She found that the teachers agreed with the general principles of CLT in the questionnaire. However, when observing their teaching, she found that the activities they chose most often did not represent the CLT principles that the teachers referred to. Furthermore, detailed study of the questionnaire answers revealed that many teachers agreed both with items that argued for a certain CLT principle as well as items that argued against that same principle. This indicates that the teachers; knowledge of CLT was superficial. “This lack of understanding, or confusion, was also verified in interviews held with the teachers , where teachers either did not understand or were not able to see the practical implications of many of the principles of the communicative approach” (Karavas-Doukas, 1996: 193).

Teacher educators also seem to have the same problems with deficient conceptual knowledge. In a study mentioned in Chapter Two, Foss (1997) did a case study of a beginning teacher educator. The teacher educator was committed to teaching according to her concepts of constructivism. Although she had an extensive knowledge of constructivism from her doctoral studies, she did not know what activities and types of classroom interaction would achieve this and result in student learning and cooperation.

Frustrated by her inability to use her conceptions of constructivism, the teacher eventually switched to a more traditional mode of teaching. Presumably she was able to do this because she had a deeper understanding of traditional teaching, having experienced it for thousands of hours as a student in her apprenticeship of observation.

Wideen, Boote and Mayer-Smith (2000) did case studies of four teacher educators.

These teacher educators all had conceptions of what they wanted to do in class, but, unfortunately, their conceptions were not detailed enough to guide them in actually

teaching their classes. Attempts to change their practice over years were unsuccessful.

For example, they concluded the following about one teacher educator: “Over the years Bill has found himself increasingly frustrated and confesses to having few solutions as to how to work with preservice teachers in a manner that will move them to change their views...he expressed concerns about not knowing how to engage beginning teachers in ways that would help them change their views about teaching” (Wideen, Boote &

Mayer-Smith, 2000: 4).

A number of studies show that even when teachers and researchers agree on something, each will interpret the idea differently according to their specific domain of knowledge.

Minnes-Brandes and Seixas (1998) described a meeting of high school teachers and university academics who met regularly to discuss new developments in the humanities in order to develop an integrated curriculum for the humanities. They reported that there was a conflict between the two groups as to what sort of knowledge they should be focusing on in the meetings. The academics wanted to focus on general concepts and

“the basics” of their subjects; the teachers wanted to focus on curriculum, activities and lesson plans. In addition, Morris (1984) conducted a survey of 118 Hong Kong high school Economics teachers. He found that although the teachers agreed with the general ideas behind the new curriculum reform, which had been formulated by university academics. However, when presented with specific classroom activities (developed by academics) incorporating the new curriculum, the teachers disagreed that such activities would help their students learn. In a slightly different study, Allen (2002) surveyed almost 3,000 foreign language teachers. The data revealed differences between how teachers and academics understood the implementation of new standards for foreign language teaching.

In summary, knowledge of what concepts mean in terms of situated practice is necessary for sophisticated knowledge and understanding of concepts. Teachers have consistently made it clear that they expect and desire these kind of detailed conceptions by consistently asking for information about what concepts mean in terms of specific teaching techniques or explanations of “what to do on Monday” (Calderhead &

Shorrock, 1997; Christ, 1990; Crookes & Arakaki, 1999; Kagan, 1993a; Kerekes, 2001;

Popko, 2005). Occasionally this has been interpreted as teachers rejecting academic conceptions. “Empirical evidence has substantiated anecdotal reports that pre- and inservice teachers tend to resist theory and scholarship. Rather than viewing academic inquiry in LT-related fields as useful, practicable, or applicable, candidates may resist theory, arguing that what they need the most is to develop practical skills” (Hedgcock, 2002: 300) [emphasis added]. Based on the evidence presented here, a more likely explanation is that such calls for specific techniques and activities represents a legitimate request for the kind of information that would allow them to develop a full and sophisticated knowledge of the concepts being looked at.