Research background and purposes
In China, in the past 20 years, many Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language (TCFL) teacher education programs have created and implemented to accommodate the increasing demands for certified Chinese language teachers (Cheng, 2015; Ke & Li, 2011; Wang, Moloney & Li, 2013). Particularly, TCFL teacher education programs at the graduate level had been emphasizing since 2006 due to shorter training periods (Zhu & Han, 2006). A statistic in 2012 showed that 285 higher education institutes in China offering Master of Arts (MA) teacher education programs in TCFL with the program name “Master of Teaching Chinese to Speakers of Other Languages (MTCSOL) (Cheng, 2015; Wang, Moloney & Li, 2013). In addition to MTCSOL, some China universities established a Master of Arts (MA) program in the field of ‘linguistics and applied linguistics’ with a sub-research area in TCFL. The MTCSOL and other TCFL’s MA programs typically take two-three years to complete a total of 38-42 credit hours courses. Graduates from these programs are expected to possess substantial content knowledge of Chinese linguistics and cultures, skillful in teaching Chinese as second language pedagogy, and strong intercultural communication skills (Cheng, 2015). Due to the demands for Chinese teachers internationally, many graduates from TCFL teacher education programs have been hired by the Office of Chinese Language Council International (Hanban) to work for the Confucius Institutes outside of China to promote Chinese language and cultures globally (Cheng, 2015). This initiative has no doubt ease the demands for Mandarin Chinese teachers worldwide.
Comparatively, in the United States (US) context, some universities also offer a MA in teaching Chinese as a Second Language (MATCSL) program. Some MA programs arose within the department of applied linguistics or department of languages and literature (Crandall, 2000; Wang, Moloney & Li, 2013). However, considering that language teaching should be an educational enterprise, not a linguistic one, a majority of the Chinese language teacher education programs were housed in the College of Education (e.g., Michigan State University, Western Michigan University, etc.). Some MATCSL programs were integrated with world language teacher education programs where the Chinese language is one of the concentrations (e.g., University of North Carolina Charlotte). As such, applicants were required to submit Chinese language proficiency test scores as a prerequisite admission criterion. Some programs required Chinese native speaker applicants with a superior level of Chinese speaking proficiency assessed by the ACTFL’s Oral Proficiency Interview test. After enrolling in the language teacher education programs, the education department will equip intern teachers with procedural knowledge such as how to designing and implementing instructional activities, and how to manage classrooms, etc., and opportunities for developing teaching skills and dispositions (Crandall, 2000). Intern teachers are also required to conduct many professional field experiences in schools. The MATCSL programs typically require 30-40 credit hours to be completed within 1-2 years. Upon graduation, Chinese teacher candidates will earn a teaching certificate to become a certified Mandarin Chinese teacher in the US (Western Michigan University, 2020).
Both MTCSOL and MATCSL programs are university postgraduate teacher education programs that focus more on the integration of language teaching skills and pedagogical content knowledge. The programs assume that pre-service teachers have already mastered the subject matter knowledge at their undergraduate university level (Mattsson, Eilertsen, & Rorrison, 2011, p.190). Unfortunately, being able to speak a language does not necessarily mean that they have a solid understanding of the literacy aspects of a language and skillful in second language teaching pedagogies (Lafayette, 1993; Orton, 2011; Senchuk, 1984). Besides, past studies showed that a significant number of Chinese teachers encountered difficulties in adapting their teaching approaches in the foreign language classrooms (Cheng, 2015; Liao, Yuan, & Zhang, 2017; Wang & Tian, 2013; Xu, 2012). For example, research conducted by Liao, Yuan, and Zhang (2017) noted that Chinese teachers encountered challenges in implementing effective world language instructional strategies in US classrooms.
From the policy perspective, according to the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers (2015), Chinese teachers should demonstrate an understanding of the multiple content areas that comprise the field of Chinese as a foreign language study. They should also demonstrate an understanding of the interrelatedness of perspectives, products, and practices in the target cultures. Also, they should know the linguistic elements of the Chinese language system, and they can recognize the changing nature of language (CAEP Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers, 2015). However, in reality, little is known if the MTCSOL and MATCSL graduates pose essential subject matter knowledge, procedural knowledge, and other domains of teacher knowledge needed to perform required teaching roles. Research on the Chinese teacher’s knowledge base is still underrepresented within the Second Language Teacher Education (SLTE) literature (Dooley, Dangel, & Farran, 2011). Hence, we embarked on this study to examine Chinese teachers’ knowledge base in both China and the US context through a comparative curriculum inquiry. The comparative study findings will add literature to the field of Second Language Teacher Education (SLTE) by unpacking the conceptualization of Mandarin Chinese teachers’ knowledge base which is needed to better serve their teaching responsibilities in a foreign language classroom.
Considering that China is the country with Chinese as its native language and has a long-established history of teaching Chinese as a foreign language teacher education programs and the US has a strong foundation in world languages teaching strategies, the primary goal of this study was to investigate Chinese teachers’ knowledge base in two different sociocultural contexts. The investigation was carried out by analyzing the program curricula of selected Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language teacher education programs (TCFLTE) in both countries. For the remaining parts of this paper, the term Teaching Chinese as a Second Language Teacher Education (TCSLTE) and TCFLTE is being used interchangeably. This study addressed three research questions as follow:
- What domains of knowledge integrated into the curricula of Chinese language teacher education programs in China and the US?
- What are the similarities and differences of TCSLTE program curricula in China and the US?
- What domain of knowledge should be included in the TCSLTE program curricula in China and the US?
Knowledge Base of Second Language Teacher Education Programs
The knowledge base itself and all its components should be a central part of any teacher education program including language teacher education programs. Historically, the content of language teacher education was defined with two constituents: subject matter knowledge and pedagogical skills (Freeman, 1989). In this study, knowledge base refers to the expertise, understanding, awareness, knowledge, and skills that second language teachers need to possess to be effective teachers (Day, 1993; Freeman & Johnson, 1998; Richards, 1998; Tedick, 2009). Second language teaching is complex compared to other subject matters in that the target language is both the medium of instruction and the object of learning. Conceptualizations vary as to what the “knowledge base” of second language teaching entails and how it is constituted (Faez, 2011). Most scholars would agree that being a native speaker does not guarantee he/she is a good teacher (Lafayette, 1993; Orton, 2011). It is also true that content knowledge does not translate automatically into pedagogical content knowledge. This section briefly discussed some influential knowledge base models in the field of SLTE that formed the theoretical foundation of this study.
In the late 80s, the literature showed that Shulman’s model (1987) emerge as the most influential theoretical framework in describing the teacher’s knowledge base. Shulman’s (1987) model proposed that the teacher’s knowledge base consists of six categories: content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, curriculum knowledge, knowledge of the learner, and knowledge of educational goals and their philosophical bases (Barahona, 2014). More details, according to Shulman, content knowledge is the subject matter or what teachers teach. The general pedagogical knowledge refers to general pedagogical skils that the teacher needs to acquire to carry out the teaching activity. The pedagogical content knowledge relates specific pedagogical skills of how language should be taught (Golombek, 1998). Next, curricular knowledge is described as the teachers’ knowledge of school curricular and how they make use of it during teaching and learning processes. The knowledge of the learner refers to knowledge about learners in various aspects such as physical, psychological, and cognitive characteristics. Finally, the knowledge of educational goals and their philosophical stance sees that teachers inquire about the educational system principles and social expectations as educators. Language teachers’ knowledge base should include these six categories too.
In the 90s, Day (1993) argued that the SLTE program should include four categories of knowledge, i.e., content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and support knowledge. In this paradigm, content knowledge refers to knowledge of the subject matter; pedagogic knowledge refers to knowledge of practices of teaching; pedagogic content knowledge refers to knowledge of teaching strategies for teaching the subject matter, and support knowledge refer to knowledge of fields/disciplines which influence language teaching such as linguistics and sociolinguistics (Faez, 2011). Day’s framework emphasizes the role of the support knowledge as “the knowledge of the various disciplines that inform our approach to the teaching and learning languages; e.g., psycholinguistics, linguistics, second language acquisition, sociolinguistics, research methods" (Day, 1993, p. 4). However, Day’s knowledge categories have not concerned about the role of the teacher as a learner and how they learn to teach (Nguyen, 2013). Next, both Roberts (1998) and Richards (1998) suggest six types of teacher knowledge. Roberts (1998) advocated that the knowledge base should include content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, general pedagogic knowledge, curricular knowledge, contextual knowledge, and process knowledge. Meanwhile, Richards (1998) suggested six domains of knowledge: theories of teaching, teaching skills, communication skills, subject matter knowledge, pedagogical reasoning and decision making, and contextual knowledge.
Following that, Freeman and Johnson (1998) proposed a reconceptualized knowledge base of SLTE that pays attention to the “activity of the teaching itself– who does it, where it is done, and how it is done” (Freeman & Johnson, 1998, p. 405). They agreed that a knowledge base must consider three inter-related activities of teaching: the teacher-learner, the social context, and the pedagogical process (Freeman & Johnson, 1998). This domain of knowledge also comprises the necessary socialization that teachers need to go through at the schools, and the pedagogical issues they faced during the teaching and learning process (Johnston & Goettsch, 2000). Freeman and Johnson’s model contributes to the improvements in the SLTE program. It is believed that a sociocultural perspective is crucial for the development of SLTE as it accounts for both the content and the process of SLTE (Nguyen, 2013). As little is known about Chinese teachers’ knowledge base that needed to support students learning a second language in China and the US context, this curricular inquiry of TCFL teacher education programs should be relevant in the field of second language teacher education.
TCFL Teachers’ Knowledge Base
The literature review indicated that language teachers’ knowledge base generally can be grouped into three domains of knowledge which are subject matters knowledge, contextual knowledge, and procedural knowledge. As such, in this study, the curricula of TCSL teacher education programs in China and the US were reviewed to find out if courses offered in the programs equip Chinese teachers with these three domains of knowledge. Three domains of knowledge are discussed in this section.
Subject Matter Knowledge
Both Roberts (1998) and Richards (1998) suggested that teachers should possess in-depth subject matters knowledge to support students learning the languages. Subject matter knowledge is content knowledge or what teachers teach (Day, 1993; Johnson, 1999; Richards, 1998, Roberts, 1998; Shulman, 1987). In this case of Chinese language teaching, subject matter knowledge includes content knowledge of Chinese linguistics such as pinyin, syntax, morphology, and grammar (e.g. Kumaravadivelu, 2006b). Subject matter knowledge is of utmost important knowledge for language teachers and its crucial role has been advocated by many scholars. For example, Shulman (1987) noted that language teachers should have some content knowledge to enable teachers to relate the second language learning to learner’s first language background. Similarly, Zeichner (2006) claimed that language teachers who lack content knowledge will contribute to the low quality of teaching. Teachers who do not have in-depth content knowledge tend to develop the lessons using textbooks and are not capable to deal with students’ confusion in language learning (Zeichner, 2006, p.23). Literature in the field of SLTE warrants the need to include relevant subject matters knowledge in TCSLTE programs.
Contextual Knowledge
Both Roberts (1998) and Richards (1998) also suggested that teachers should possess contextual knowledge to support their teaching role. Context knowledge refers to knowledge about the classrooms, school, the institution, or the community where teaching and learning will take place (Johnson, 1999, p.24). Borg (2003) conceptualized contextual factors as “the social, psychological, and environmental realities of the school and the classroom” (p.94). This domain of knowledge comprises of knowledge about stakeholder’s expectation, school culture, state curriculum standards, district and school policies, standardized tests, and teaching resources (Borg, 2003, p. 94). Besides, the contextual factors encompass governmental, markets, property rights, law, race, gender, religion, and disability (Grant & Gillette, 2006, p.294). In a broader sense, teachers should pay attention to the sociocultural and institutional contexts when designing their lessons’ content and making decisions on the pedagogy approaches. Inevitably, scholars advocate that SLTE should equip pre-service second language teachers with contextual knowledge before they begin teaching in schools.
Procedural Knowledge
Both Roberts (1998) and Richards (1998) advocated that teachers should possess procedural knowledge to function efficiently in their day-to-day works. Procedures knowledge involves the knowledge of how to teach a language. The procedures include planning, presenting the content, using the teaching aids or resources, managing the classrooms, and assessing student learning. Shulman called it as pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Meanwhile, Malderez and Wedell (2007) claimed that PCK is the most crucial knowledge that pre-service teachers should learn. It is pointless to just have subject matter and contextual knowledge but lack of knowledge on how to deliver the content to support student learning (p. 24-25).
Some scholars claimed that procedural knowledge should include knowledge of how to assess student learning (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Intrator, 2006). Knowledge of assessment has two complementary forms: assessing the learners and self-assessment by language teachers. It is suggested that teachers acquire the skill of formative assessment to find out if the learning objectives of a particular lesson, topic, or skill are being met (Darling-Hammond, 2006). In this case, language teachers should have developed their understanding of how to continuously assess learners and also to use the assessment data as a reference for the improvement of their teaching practice during teacher preparation period (Intrator, 2006). As such, literature suggested that pre-service teachers need to be supported during their SLTE to develop a clear rationale and deeper understanding of the testing process as it forms an important aspect of their teaching. Procedural knowledge is essential for all pre-service second language teachers. To conclude, in this study, we claimed that Chinese language teachers’ knowledge base should consist of three domains of knowledge, i.e., content knowledge, contextual knowledge, and procedural knowledge. All three categories of knowledge should be addressed by the curriculum developers when designing a TCSLTE program.