Confidence in KAG

A. Manifestations of confidence in KAG

Andrews (1999b) argues that the quality of the input the teacher filters for learners is influenced by such factors as the extent of his/her explicit KAL and his/her confidence in it. In Emma’s case, manifestations of confidence in her KAG, which she states she feels when teaching at an intermediate level at secondary school (SR2, overall questions), seem to be evident in her readiness

to filter the grammatical input the learners receive from the textbook and from other students. This predisposition also reflects, as pointed out in 5.1.3, her “awareness of [her] key role in mediating input for learning” (Andrews and McNeill, 2005: 174).

As regards filtering input from the materials, she argues that she is ready to challenge the book if necessary (SR7, E4) and to be critical of the treatment

given to the content in the textbook in relation to her own teaching objectives

(TD; SR1, E1). Though in general she trusts the information and examples

provided in textbooks from well-known authors and publishers, she claims she has spotted mistakes more than once (SR3, E1) and recalls the following

instance: “I remember that this happened with […] the teaching of present continuous. The explanation was for an activity that is going on now. And the example is ‘this afternoon he’s going shopping’. So at that moment I had to explain, very briefly because they were smaller kids and the level was lower, that that use was not exactly an action that was happening at the moment” (SR8, E6).

She also adds that the rules textbooks include sometimes are inaccurate or incomplete and remembers the following case: “once I read that you cannot even use present perfect to say ‘a person has died’, which I’ve heard. But I remember reading a grammatical explanation saying that the only tense to refer to that action would be past simple” (SR8, E7). When she identifies inadequacies in the

otherwise, she overlooks them (SR8, E6). There are occasions on which the

input is accurate but too complex for the students. In such cases, she filters the information using these techniques: “Sometimes I provide a different context from the one there; sometimes I expand the context; sometimes I add another strategy, for example, I don’t know, the use of the past perfect for narrative purposes: well, I produce extra practice, writing practice, writing a short story or a story. What else? More explanation. That’s what I do” (SR1, E1). It is worth

highlighting, though, that in the classes observed there were no instances in which Emma filtered the grammatical input the learners received from the materials, even when this would have been appropriate (see 5.3.2 A). She once wrote in her diary: “I don’t really like the next grammar point as it is planned in the textbook. I think this verb tense – Present Perfect Progressive – does not match the discourse expectations I have of the unit = narration of an accident while travelling” (TD). Despite this, she made no changes to the materials or in class to

adapt grammar items to her teaching needs.

With reference to filtering input from other learners, this took place when Emma corrected the students’ oral mistakes and when she made comments on their contributions, for example, while eliciting information from them. Both her corrections and comments were accurate, and she looked confident most of the times. Regarding her correcting oral inaccuracies, it could be seen, however, that there were occasions when she made corrections and some others when she overlooked the mistakes. When asked to explain the rationale for this, she explained that, in general, she makes corrections when “the mistake sounds too shocking or too different [from the correct version]” (SR1, E4-7) and depending

on who is being corrected, as is shown in the following two extracts:

Extract 1

For example in the case of [name of student] […] when she said: ‘well, I didn’t see the match either’. For example that use of ‘either’. I know that she’s such a good student, I don’t care if she said [in the same answer]: ‘I hear it’. In that case I would say that yes, again, I would overlook one example, one mistake if the student contributes with some very good language on the other hand. […] In the case of weak students … for example, [name of student] has a tendency to use ‘have’ for all the people and all the time. ‘Have’ is the only verb. In fact, he uses, he overuses ‘have’ instead of other verbs. In that case I didn’t want to interrupt that dialogue. I think that later on I, probably not in this case, […] I would’ve said ‘OK, [name of student], why don’t you

say it again this time and you correct all the ‘haves’ and try to say or has or had or another word’. So maybe, maybe something has to do with the type of student […]. Too good or very good, a student that is very good, OK, never mind if she made a mistake, leave it like that. Probably too weak or too hesitant like [name of student] when he said ‘I have, I had to listen in the radio but we can listen all the match’,

because I know that he’s too shy, so in that case I … I know … personalities (SR1, E4-7)

Extract 2

Again, again, in this case I know that the student who produced this mistake was very good because to produce ‘must’ve seen it’ she was good, she was using a modal in the perfective tense or form. She deserves an explanation and a correction, because this girl is at the point of improving her language. […] I think that she deserves MY explanation. I cannot overlook that girl because she’s going to understand it. Maybe I wouldn’t explain that to one of the boys that made mistakes before (SR1, E8) These extracts reveal that the teacher’s decision of whether to correct or overlook a mistake does not relate only to her confidence in her KAG but depends on other aspects such as the learners’ language level, their personality, their capacity to understand her explanations, and their possibilities to advance their knowledge of English. All in all, her willingness to filter the input learners received from other learners and the quality of the eventual ‘filtered’ input might be evidence not only of Emma’s explicit knowledge of the grammatical features involved but also of her confidence in such knowledge.

B. Manifestations of lack of confidence in KAG

Notwithstanding Emma’s claim of confidence in her KAG when teaching at an intermediate level at secondary school and the evidence described above, there were several manifestations of lack of confidence in her KAG in the classes observed and the SR sessions. Her lack of confidence is reflected basically in her frequent use of what Biber et al. call “epistemic stance adverbials of doubt” like ‘probably’, ‘most probably’, and ‘maybe’ (1999: 854), and of other hedging expressions such as ’90 per cent’, ‘usually’, and ‘sometimes’ when providing rules and explanations either in class or during the interviews. The following extracts show two occasions in her class when she displayed this behaviour:

Extract 1

T: […] What else did you use to do as a kid? St: Watch television [unintelligible].

T: But you don’t watch it now? Because that’s the point: if you use ‘used to’ it means

that practically now you don’t do it any longer (SR2 E6; emphasis added) Extract 2

T: So, I understood the lesson: ‘used to’ you used it when you want to refer to a past

habit that you had, probably with the idea of some time ago, and probably with the

idea that you don’t do it any longer. That habit has stopped somehow (ibid., emphasis added)

Emma employs the adverbials ‘practically’ and ‘probably’ when explaining the use of ‘used to’. When asked to comment on the statements in these extracts, she said:

I don’t know if they are true. I mean, what happens is that sometimes when you give a rule … er, well, you remember the rule as a teacher because you have studied it, because the text says it, and … you play safe because you’re not a native speaker, probably you play safe by repeating a rule. Sometimes, and it has happened to me,

you say a rule and, somehow, someone says an expression and you have to agree that it was right, and that expression was the exception to the rule, or … it was

breaking the rule altogether. Imagine, we teach English with British books … the present perfect has a lot of consideration in these textbooks and suddenly you listen to a song that is an American song and where the present perfect is not used as in Great Britain, so everything is in the past tense. All the rules that you said, something that happens lately, something that is connected to the present, suddenly … false, I don’t know, you cannot hold on to that rule in front of the students. And what you want to do is to help them. So what I do is I protect [T laughs] myself by saying well ‘probably’, ‘most probably’, in case, in case you can use ‘used to’ for one meaning that includes the present too, which I don’t think so, I don’t think now. But I have that,

that strategy (ibid.)

This passage confirms that Emma’s use of ‘epistemic stance adverbials of doubt’ is derived from her lack of confidence in her KAG. First, she openly declares she is not sure if the rule she is giving the learners is true and justifies her uncertainty making reference to the existence of exceptions to rules and recalling some

more confident with her knowledge of rules but became less sure as she proved herself wrong on many occasions: “I used to be probably more straightforward to saying ‘no, they cannot go together, it doesn’t sound good, don’t say it’ until […] I was surprised. I was surprised many times in my academic life with expressions that I said they couldn’t go together, that was wrong, and then I read it and it was OK and it was used and apparently was formally good” (SR8, E5). This might

reveal Emma’s belief that feeling confident with one’s KAG is determined by one’s knowledge of rules and all their exceptions, and by the ability to provide learners with categorical explanations. Second, further evidence of her lack of confidence can be found in her acknowledgement that she plays safe by repeating a rule, which, as a NNS of the language, she has studied from a textbook. This might in part explain the book-based nature of her classes and the fact that, though she claims she is critical of and sometimes filters the book contents, in the ten classes observed there were no instances of her filtering the grammatical input learners received from the textbook (see previous section). Finally, Emma adds that using these adverbials is a strategy she employs to protect herself, which she confirms in another SR interview when she discusses her use of ‘usually’ in her explanation of the plural noun ‘travels’ (SR3, E2). A

similar case is reported on in Borg (2001). Eric, an experienced teacher with an overall confidence in his KAG (like Emma), used hedging qualifiers such as ‘usually’ and ’90 per cent’ to cover himself when he felt uncertain about some grammar items.

A further indication of lack of confidence in her KAG takes place when Emma attempts to explain the ungrammaticality of ‘he’s been being aggressive’ (see class extract in 5.3.2 A). When she heard the student’s question, her first reaction was to bounce it back to the learner. In the SR session she said: “I was surprised and I sent the question to see if they realised while, and that would be my strategy, my secret, while I thought about a clear, simple answer … while I gathered my ideas to give the explanation” (SR8, E5). Though the reason for

bouncing the question back to the individual student may well have been intended to promote class discussion, as was the typical reaction of Eric in Borg (2001) when he felt confident, in this case Emma’s behaviour seemed to be related to her possible lack of explicit knowledge of the grammatical item concerned and her lack of confidence in the explanation she thought she could provide. This lack of confidence was confirmed afterwards in class and in the SR

session. After explaining to the students that “it’s redundant to use […] two forms of the same verb [together]”, she told them: “I don’t know if you cannot, but it doesn’t sound, doesn’t sound good” (ibid.). Then, when asked to comment on

this in the SR interview, she stated that she had felt doubtful when answering the question and said: “I didn’t want to commit myself to saying ‘they cannot go together because it’s a grammar rule’” (ibid.).

All in all, the first impression one gets when observing Emma teaching grammar is that of a teacher with an easy confidence in her KAG. Most of the times she provides immediate responses to students’ questions, includes relevant examples and L1-L2 comparisons in her explanations, and shows readiness to filter learners’ output and to make spontaneous comments about that. However, a closer look at her actions and explanations might also reveal she lacks some confidence. This is reflected essentially in her recurrent use of hedging expressions and epistemic stance adverbials of doubt when explaining rules and uses. Further evidence can be found in her reliance on the materials and her inclination to repeat the rules she has studied from them to ‘play safe’, as well as in her occasional use of strategies to ‘protect’ herself such as bouncing learners’ questions back to them to allow herself more time to think. Finally, her lack of confidence might also be manifested in her fear for losing control and not being able to respond to the students’ inquiries during impromptu grammar work, and the rare occasions on which she engages in the incidental teaching of grammar content (see 5.1.2 and 5.1.9).

5.3.4 Grammatical terminology

There are some manifestations of Emma’s knowledge of grammatical terminology in the SR interviews. First, she made reference to students’ mistakes or contributions using specific grammatical labels. For instance, when she corrected “you must have seen it” for “you should have seen it”, she said the learner “was using a modal in the perfective tense or form” (SR1, E8). Second,

she showed knowledge of grammatical terminology when she named the grammar items included in the textbook. Examples are the names of tenses (e.g., PPS, PPC, present simple, past simple, and past perfect), some adverbials (e.g., ‘linking words’), personal pronouns, and modal auxiliaries. Third, she occasionally used metalanguage to provide explanations, for example, when she said: “So instead of explaining that ‘while’ connects to phrases and clauses, saying the

name of the conjunction …” (SR1, E10). Similarly, in her classes, Emma

employed grammatical terms when explaining some grammar content to the students like the distinction between ‘would’ in conditional sentences, to express past habits, and to show future in the past; the use of ‘state’ and ‘action’ verbs; the difference between the prepositions ‘on’ and ‘by’; the use of word categories (nouns vs. verbs); and the uses of and distinction between PPS and PPC. In the GJT, she also made use of some grammatical terminology when naming the mistakes and sometimes when explaining them. The grammatical labels she used were: verbs (state verb, finite verb, modal verb, and third person singular), participles (present and past participles in participial phrases), nouns (plural), adjectives, adverbs, articles, prepositions, tenses (past continuous, past simple, and present perfect), subject, object, relative clauses, voice (active and passive), reported speech, agreement, and syntax.

However, there are also instances in which Emma, probably due to her tendency to reduce the complexity of grammar content to the learners, omits to use specific grammatical terminology. Firstly, she provided explanations in class without using any grammatical labels. Such was the case of the use of ‘worth visiting’, the distinction between ‘what do you think about …?’ and ‘what did you think about …?’, and the use of different ‘linking words’ (e.g., ‘after’ vs. ‘suddenly’ and ‘just then’). Secondly, she repeatedly used generic terms to refer to specific structures. The one she used the most is ‘expression’, which she mentioned both in class and in the interviews (e.g., to name ‘would’/‘used to’ and ‘adverbials of time’) and which she seems to employ as an ‘umbrella’ term to refer to grammatical items in general, probably because it is safer than using more precise terms. Another generic term is ‘pattern’, which she made use of in the GJT (e.g., to refer to ‘seem + to-infinitive verb’, ‘beg someone + to-infinitive verb’, and ‘to do something to make someone + adjective’). Thirdly, during the presentation of PPS and PPC, Emma first used the correct grammatical labels and then simplified them into misleading terms. For example, she used ‘tense’ to refer to PPC and then replaced it with ‘verb’ on two occasions. Likewise, she used ‘pronouns’ and afterwards employed ‘persons’ and ‘people’: “Do you remember, do you remember the pronouns for ‘have’? The persons for ‘have’? […] And do you remember the people for …” (class 6, SR6 E1). Finally, she

labelled some grammatical points with the wrong term. One case is her use of ‘verb tense’ to refer to ‘would’ and ‘used to’, instead of using, for instance, ‘modal

auxiliary’ and ‘marginal auxiliary’ or simply ‘auxiliary’. Another example is the use of ‘case’ in ‘plural case’ in the GJT. It is not clear in the context of her corrections what she means by ‘case’.

In Emma’s answers to the GJT, where she was required to name the grammatical item in each correction, there were 27 instances out of 61 corrections she made in which she did not provide any grammatical terminology (44.26% of the times). It is hard to claim that this fact shows lack of knowledge of grammatical terms since, as explained in 5.3.1 B, her responses are influenced by other aspects than merely her KAG such as personal and situational restrictions and distracting CFs. Moreover, many of the grammatical points she did not name in the task are included in her explanations both in class and in the SR sessions. Nonetheless, the grammar items she did not mention in the task are: to infinitive verb (5 times), preposition (4), past perfect (2), past simple (5), present simple (2), past participle (1), genitive case (3), determiner (1), pronoun (3), and noun (1).

In conclusion, the analysis of Emma’s use of grammatical terminology