10.3 Challenges in Developing Linguistic Subject K...
Linguistic subject knowledge is a major factor that differentiates novice teachers from competent practitioners (Love, 2010). This knowledge is central to supporting students in advanced language/literacy development and disciplinary learning. After all, language is the primary means for constructing meaning. Understanding the nature of the material (i.e., language) used in constructing knowledge and value — its forms, structures, logic, meanings, and functions — can help teachers better scaffold student learning, such as unpacking lexically dense or grammatically intricate sentences, describing the contribution of grammatical structures to patterns of meaning in texts, identifying and responding to the linguistic challenges of academic texts for reading comprehension, explaining why the author made particular language choices, offering evidence-based insights into what makes a text more or less successful, and articulating concrete suggestions for improving comprehension and composition of texts. In short, English teachers who are equipped with linguistic subject knowledge will be better positioned to plan for, teach, and assess language and literacy in their classroom practice.
Despite the importance of linguistic subject knowledge, many English teachers at all levels of education lack a deep grasp of this knowledge. In the U.S., for example, even motivated and experienced reading teachers, language arts teachers, speech-language pathologists, and special education teachers were found to have little understanding of the structure of spoken and written language because this knowledge has been "the missing foundation in teacher education" (Moats, 1994, p. 81; Moats & Foorman, 2003). The same problem appears to also exist in China. English teachers in China are predominantly graduates from university departments of English, where curricular emphasis has traditionally been placed on literature. They receive little systematic training aimed at equipping them with robust knowledge about grammar and meaning and have minimal engagement with linguistics research that addresses pedagogical issues. Although they may have taken a grammar course that enables them to identify grammatical terminology and diagram sentences, many of them do not have an adequate grounding in the linguistics of English. As a result, they lack a deep "understanding about linguistic systems relevant to the ways different school subjects foreground particular meanings through their discursive practices and favored genres" (Schleppegrell, 2020, p. 21).(https://www.daowen.com)
Moreover, as Myhill (2010) pointed out, teachers who come to English teaching through a degree that emphasizes literature "may have very little interest in linguistics, and their own identity as an English teacher may be heavily shaped by their values and beliefs about what literature can offer learners" (p. 142). It is thus not surprising that "many English teachers eschew grammar or reject its value in English teaching if their intellectual and pedagogical confidence with literature is counterpointed by frustration in attempting to understand clause structures" (Myhill, 2010, p. 142). These factors may have discouraged teachers from proactively engaging students in overt, productive discussion about the ways language is used to make meaning in the texts students read and write. When grammar becomes an instructional mandate from curriculum authorities, teachers often have to rely on commercial teaching materials, which are overwhelmingly oriented toward traditional grammar and often suspect in quality.