Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

System 39 (2011) 381e390

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Two dimensions of teacher knowledge: The case

of communicative language teaching
Devon Woods*, Hamide Çakır
School of Linguistics and Language Studies, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON K1S5B6, Canada
Received 15 January 2011; accepted 25 May 2011

Abstract

The interconnected conceptual areas of teacher knowledge and teacher beliefs (included by some authors under the rubric of
teacher cognition) have been debated in the field of language education intensively for the last two decades, during which time the
terminology used in the discussions has been interpreted in a variety of different ways. However, there have been limited attempts to
study the way in which teacher knowledge and beliefs develop in specific cases of language teaching methodology: one area of that
has not been studied is that of knowledge/beliefs of communicativeness in language teaching. This paper argues that the conceptual
area referred to by the above term is multi-dimensional and dynamic. It first develops a framework which focuses specifically on
two of these dimensions, a personaleimpersonal dimension, and a theoreticalepractical dimension. It then examines the interaction
between these two dimensions in the specific case of the knowledge of communicative language teaching of six Turkish teachers of
English, using the term “understandings” to refer to this dynamic phenomenon.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Teacher knowledge; Communicative language teaching; Theoretical knowledge; Practical knowledge; Teacher beliefs; Teacher
cognition; EFL; Teacher education

1. Introduction

The field [of teacher cognition] is characterized by an overwhelming array of concepts. . . . The need for such
diversity may be justified by the inherently complex nature of the phenomenon under study; however, the
confusion is also due to the fact that identical terms have been defined in different ways and different terms
have been used to describe similar concepts. (p. 35)
This point was made by Simon Borg in his 2006 review of the state of the art in research on language teacher
cognition. He argues that the field of teacher cognition, which he defines as “what teachers think, know and believe”
(p. 1), is hindered by this array of concepts, and that a conceptual synthesis is needed. Woods (2009), however, argues
that the issue is not an overwhelming array of concepts, but rather the array of terms. He notes that just because two
researchers use different terms does not necessarily mean that they are talking about conceptually “different things”.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: devon_woods@carleton.ca (D. Woods).

0346-251X/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.07.010
382 D. Woods, H. Çakır / System 39 (2011) 381e390

Although there may be a difference in the sense that they are articulations of different theories, they may well be
otherwise virtually identical. Conversely, just because two researchers use the same term does not mean that they have
identical concepts in mind. Woods states that what needs more attention is “.not the proliferation of terms but
explicating the relationships among the concepts e the relationships of beliefs to knowledge, of experience to verbal
learning, and of both of these to action and practice” (p. 513).
Because the notion of concept is central in this argument, we will begin this article by discussing what can be meant
by this term. Most English dictionary definitions use phrases like “an abstract idea” or “mental image” as synonyms
for concept, and do not mention the linguistic representation (i.e. the term used for it) of the abstract idea or mental
image in the definition. For Vygotsky 1987, (cited in Wells, 1994), however, a concept is not independent of the term
that is used to refer to it: “. the development of concepts and the development of word meanings are one and the same
process (p. 180)”. It can be argued that language is an inherent aspect of a concept, since “an idea”, articulated as
a count noun, needs to be delineated in order to specify where it begins and ends and what exactly it includes. A
definition attempts to do this, but it cannot totally succeed, of course, because a definition is also made up of terms. For
example, in the dynamic stream of thought that is engaging a teacher’s or researcher’s mind in a particular circum-
stance, an idea of “communicative teaching” may arise e but without language, it cannot be isolated from what
preceded or followed it, nor can its relationship to all other ideas that might be considered aspects or components be
specified. In other words, although a concept or idea does not have a one-to-one relationship with a particular word, its
existence as an entity is intricately connected to language.
This relationship of concepts (ideas) and terms is implicit in Benjamin Whorf’s (1956) controversial notion of
linguistic relativity: our language predisposes us to seeing the world in a particular way. According to Whorf, “[w]e
dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. We cannot talk at all except by subscribing to the
organization and classification of data which the [speech community] decrees” (p. 213e214). Although the contro-
versy in Whorf’s work was that the linguistic structure of different languages predisposes its speakers to seeing the
world in different ways, the underlying presupposition is that we all tend to take the symbol as “reality”. In essence,
the term becomes the idea that, for each one of us, it refers to: we “mistake the map for the territory” (a notorious
phrase originally from Albert Korzybsky, discussed in Bateson, 1972). We lose track of the fact that a term can only
refer to ideas (i.e. knowledge structures) that an individual has already created internally, and that these will not be
identical to any other individual. To carry the analogy a little further, a map, by definition, cannot include all of the
features of the territory it is attempting to represent e otherwise it would be the territory. Similarly, a term can only be
a pointer towards an unspecified conceptual area e a range of possible more specified mental images. It is the
individual who, through their experiences in social and cognitive interactions over time, gradually specifies e or
constructs in unique ways e a concept pointed at by the term. Nonetheless, we often treat the term as the idea, and
mistakenly assume that all of the characteristics that we attribute to it are inherent in the term itself, and therefore
shared by all who use the term.
In light of the above discussion, the purpose of this article is to critically examine two “concepts” e perhaps better
phrased as conceptual areas e in applied linguistics. The first conceptual area is the one discussed above using the
term teacher cognition: what a teacher thinks, knows and believes. The term teacher beliefs has been used for this
conceptual area (Woods, 1996; Barcelos, 2003), as well as an array of other terms, noted below. Most commonly, the
term teacher knowledge has been used and it is the one that we will initially use to guide our arguments in this paper.
The first main section of this article, then, examines the various facets of what can be referred to by the term teacher
knowledge, before beginning an empirical investigation of one area of teacher knowledge.
The second conceptual area is a central one in discussions of language teaching methodology e it is a conceptual
area referred to by the phrase communicative language teaching. In this case, the term communicative language
teaching is the “map”; however, discussions both in the literature and in teacher education programs often take the
term as the “territory” and assume that there is a clear and well-specified referent that the term refers to, rather than its
being a gesture towards an unspecified range of possible constructs and relationships that individuals dynamically
construct and instantiate through experience. In order to permit a more flexible discussion with reference to this
conceptual area of language teaching, we will use the phrase communicativeness in language teaching. The second
main section of this article describes a study of the knowledge of communicativeness in language teaching of six
recently graduated teachers of English as a foreign language in Turkey. The framework developed for teacher
knowledge in the first section will become the “map” that will help us to navigate the conceptual area of commu-
nicative language teaching in the second section.
 D. Woods, H. Çakır / System 39 (2011) 381e390 383

2. The concept of teacher knowledge

Borg (2006), in two extensive tables (pp. 36e39 and 47e49), demonstrates that there is, indeed, a “bewildering
array” of terms used to describe aspects of what the teacher thinks, knows and believes. Terms such as pedagogical
knowledge (Gatbonton, 1999), content knowledge (Grossman, 1989; Wilson et al., 1987), pedagogical content
knowledge (Shulman, 1986), practical knowledge (Calderhead, 1988), personal practical knowledge (Connelly and
Clandinin, 1988), knowledge about language (Borg, 2005), knowledge in action, theories for practice, personal
theories (Sendan and Roberts, 1998), theoretical beliefs (Johnson, 1992), knowledge base for teaching (Freeman and
Johnson, 1998), professional knowledge in action (Wette, 2010), among many other variants, have all attempted to
capture different aspects of what a language teacher thinks, knows, believes e and also does.
However, a close analysis of the discussions in which these terms are used reveals a specific set of recurring
themes relating to particular distinctions within this overall conceptual area. The first is the traditional distinction
between knowledge which is “objective” (i.e. “true”), universal and impersonal, and that which is “subjective” (i.e.
colored by personal biases), idiosyncratic and personal. The term knowledge (unmodified) is often used to refer to
the former, while beliefs is often used to refer to the latter. The second is the distinction between knowledge which
is explicit and theoretical (verbally articulated), and knowledge which is implicit and embedded in practice (gained
experientially and used automatically, like one’s mother tongue). In this distinction, the term knowledge
(unmodified) is often used to refer to the former, and the term ability (as well as skill, competence, or proficiency) is
often used to refer to the latter. These two distinctions are often collapsed, as in Connolly and Clandinin’s (1987)
term personal practical knowledge, since practical knowledge derived from one’s experience is also personal. A
third and related distinction is between knowledge which is potential and ready to use (a capability), and knowledge
which is actualized and instantiated in the actions that we take. This distinction is also often collapsed into the
theoreticalepractical distinction, because of the implication that experientially-derived knowledge is more likely to
occur in action than verbally-derived knowledge. A number of further distinctions exist related to the domain of the
knowledge, for example the teacher’s pedagogic knowledge (knowledge of teaching) versus content knowledge
(knowledge of the subject matter to be taught, such as mathematics, literature, or language). And, still further,
buried within the notion of content knowledge for language teachers are further distinctions related to the meaning
of the knowledge of language, which may be narrowly defined in terms of grammar and lexicon, or more broadly in
terms of communication, genres and social culture.
Our argument in this paper is that there is a dynamic interaction among these dimensions which allows for the
development or evolution of a teacher’s knowledge. In this case, we are using the term knowledge in the broadest
possible sense, and arguing, in fact, that teacher knowledge itself is dynamic. At the risk (or perhaps with the goal) of
adding to this terminological proliferation, we also use the term understandings to emphasize this dynamic nature of
teacher knowledge. In the following sections of the paper, we will discuss in more detail the interactions between first
two of these distinctions of knowledge, with specific reference to the case of the evolving understandings of language
teachers of the concept of communicativeness in language teaching.

2.1. Knowledge and beliefs

The first dimension introduced above is between what is considered to be objectively and universally true (typically
referred to, as noted, by the unmodified term knowledge) and that which is true for a particular individual and therefore
subjective and personal (often referred to by the term beliefs). This distinction is central in the fields of philosophy,
science and law, not to mention in social sciences such as applied linguistics. As noted by philosophers of science such
as Popper, however, this distinction is not self-evident: a proposition can never be “proven” to be true, it can only be
refuted. Many assumed “truths” or “universals” are later determined to be culture- or context-specific. In practice,
therefore, the objectivity of a proposition is a matter of demonstrability and consensus.
A number of authors have nonetheless attempted to delineate the distinction between beliefs and knowledge.
Abelson (1979) identified seven features that characterize belief systems as distinguished from knowledge systems:
(1) being non-consensual; (2) denoting existential entities such as God, witches etc.; (3) acknowledging “alternative
worlds”; (4) relying on evaluative and affective components; (5) including episodic material such as folklore and
cultural experiences; (6) having open boundaries (including self-concept); (7) holding variable credence and having
varying degrees of certitude.
384 D. Woods, H. Çakır / System 39 (2011) 381e390

Others, such as Elbaz (1981), Calderhead (1988, 1996), Connelly and Clandinin (1988, 1996), Hoy et al. (2006)
and Meijer et al. (1999), by using the term personal knowledge, emphasize the fact that beliefs are not distinct
from knowledge, but rather a crucial part of it. Pajares (1992), similarly, emphasizes the fact that knowledge has
inherent affective aspects:
“. cognitive knowledge, however envisioned, must also have its own affective and evaluative component.
The conception of knowledge as somehow purer than belief and closer to the truth or falsity of a thing requires
a mechanistic outlook not easily digested. What truth, what knowledge, can exist in the absence of judgment or
evaluation?” (p. 310)
Woods (1996) argues that both knowledge and beliefs involve structured and dynamically evolving understandings
of phenomena, and that since, in their decision-making practices, teachers’ use of knowledge structures is not
distinguishable from their use of belief structures, the concept is better seen as a continuum. For this continuum, he
coined the acronym BAK (Beliefs, Assumptions, Knowledge), arguing that, rather than attempting to delineate the
difference, it is more meaningful to emphasize the spectral nature of the concept in the decision-making and inter-
pretive processes of the teacher. In other words, any teacher’s BAK structures will have certain parts or aspects which
are more personal and others more consensual,
In this paper, we are treating the broader concept referred to by the term knowledge as being synonymous with
BAK, a continuum or dimension along which certain things that we “know/believe” can be placed. The factors that
determine where on the continuum these “things” are placed are related to (i) how shared the knowledge is, and (ii)
how emotionally-colored or emotion-free it is. Toward the personal end of the spectrum is knowledge that is individual
(with the acknowledgment there are alternative views held by other individuals or groups) and that we personally
identify with or have a moral judgment about. Toward the impersonal or consensual end of the spectrum is knowledge
that we treat as widely shared (and therefore considered “true” or “universal”), and have no personal identification
with or moral judgment about (since, being “true”, there are no alternatives).
Fig. 1 depicts this dimension of knowledge using the descriptors personaleimpersonal.
One important aspect of this view of a knowledge dimension is that the placement of any knowledge on this
continuum is situated, contextualized and dynamic (or temporary). Because it is part of a knowledge structure, and it is
articulated in rhetorical terms, its degree of “truth” depends both on other aspects of the structure, and how it is
articulated. It is therefore more of a process than an entity.
A second important aspect is that a particular placement on the spectrum is an interpretive and negotiated process,
and determined according to a socially-determined power structure: there are experts who must argue that they
“know” and can determine what is true from what is opinion. An example of both the dynamic and negotiated nature
along this knowledge dimension might be the presentation of research findings at a conference, done in a factual
emotion-free scientific manner and logically supporting a particular theoretical position; when challenged by
a member of the audience who takes an opposing and perhaps threatening alternative position, the presentation of
factual and impersonal knowledge may begin to quickly slide in the direction of personal knowledge and opinion.

2.2. Knowledge versus ability

The second dimension involves another central distinction in philosophy and psychology e between knowledge
that is “in the mind” and explicitly articulated and consciously transmitted e and knowledge that is “in the body” and
implicitly embodied, experientially-derived, and unconsciously or “automatically” instantiated. There are many terms
that have been used to refer to aspects of this underlying distinction. On the one hand, terms such as theoretical
knowledge, theory, explicit knowledge, declarative knowledge, conscious knowledge, and knowledge about, as well as
the simple term knowledge, have been used to refer to aspects of the first of these. The term personal theory has also
been used, to refer to explicit knowledge at the personal end of the dimension described earlier. On the other hand,

Personal Impersonal

Fig. 1. The personaleimpersonal dimension of teacher knowledge.

 D. Woods, H. Çakır / System 39 (2011) 381e390 385

terms such as practical knowledge, procedural knowledge, implicit knowledge, tacit knowledge, proficiency,
competence, automatized knowledge, unconscious knowledge, experiential knowledge, and knowledge in action, as
well the lay terms skill and ability, have been used to contrast aspects of the latter from the former. The distinction is
also inherent in the verb expressions to know and to know how.
It is important to acknowledge that the above sets of terms are not synonymous e they highlight a variety of
contrasts and facets related to how the knowledge is gained (whether experience or verbal transmission) or accessed
and used (e.g. explicit knowledge or implicit ability). However, there is a common theme underlying these distinc-
tions. On one hand is a type of knowledge that is seen as abstracted and generalized, and explicated through analysis
and transmitted through language. It is an explicit, declarative form of knowledge that has been brought to
consciousness through verbalization. On the other hand is a type of knowledge that is seen as situated and derived
implicitly through experience. The references to practical knowledge were posited in reaction to the traditional view
that what teachers know (or should know) is learned through the verbal transmission of information about teaching,
rather than gained through experience in teaching settings.
Woods (1996) argues for a more fine-grained relationship between these sources of knowledge. He discusses the
interwoven nature of conscious and unconscious knowledge, arguing that in any specific case and at any specific
moment, a teacher’s knowledge may be brought more or less into consciousness. Because of the limited capacity of
conscious attention (Tomlin and Villa, 1994), and what he terms the heterarchical nature of events (Woods, 1997,
2006), there are constant fluctuations in attention and what “level” one is focused on at any moment. Explicit
knowledge can become more automatic with use, and implicit ability can become more verbalized through noticing,
reflection and discussion. In other words, the distinction between theoretical and practical knowledge can also be seen
as a continuum. This continuum gives us a second dimension of knowledge. Again, the placement of the “knowledge”
on the spectrum is contextually determined and situated, and can be seen as a dynamic process as much as an entity,
moving from one moment to another through use, noticing and articulation.
Fig. 2 depicts this dimension of knowledge using the descriptors theoreticalepractical.
However, there is a further implicit aspect of this distinction which is part of discussions of teaching: that between
knowledge and action e in other words, the distinction between knowing and doing. The importance of this distinction
is noted by Borg (2006): an important aim since the beginnings of teacher cognition research (Clark and Peterson,
1986; National Institute of Education, 1975) is “how teacher thought and action e what a teacher knows and what
a teacher does e come together in relation to one another”. In studies of language teacher cognition, researchers have
often argued that teachers’ practice is not consistent with their verbalized and articulated theoretical knowledge (e.g.,
Johnson, 1992; Karavas-Doukas, 1996; Mangubhai et al., 2004; Sato and Kleinsasser, 1999). Some attribute the
inconsistencies to external factors outside of the teacher’s background knowledge frame, such as contextual
constraints (Lee, 2009), lack of understanding or confusion on the part of the teachers (Karavas-Doukas, 1996),

Theoretical

Practical
Fig. 2. The theoreticalepractical dimension of teacher knowledge.
386 D. Woods, H. Çakır / System 39 (2011) 381e390

language and institutional policies (Farrell, 2007), teachers’ personal experiences (Sato and Kleinsasser, 1999), etc.
They are looked at as “excuses” for the inconsistencies (Lee, 2009). Other authors relate the inconsistencies between
what teachers say and what they do to the practicaletheoretical distinction, the fact that theoretical knowledge and
practical knowledge are two different “knowledge sources” (Borg, 2006) or “ways of knowing” (Bruner, 1973), and
that action stems from practical knowledge.
However, when we take the term knowledge in the broad sense described above to refer to anywhere on the
theoreticalepractical spectrum, then knowledge is distinguished from action in another way. When talking about
knowledge, we are referring to an abstract generalized type of knowing that is potential. When talking about action, we
are referring to the actual instantiation of knowledge in a particular set of movements at a particular moment and
particular place. It can indeed be argued that practical knowledge is closer to action, specifically because, in many
definitions, it includes specific contexts and situations (for example, in Connelly and Clandinin’s 1996 notion of
personal practical knowledge). If we take this argument to the extreme, to this specific moment and this specific place,
we might even say that, in acting, we always “do what we know” e or at least we did what we knew at that specific
moment in time. If we did not do it, then it means that e at that particular moment in time e we did not “know” it.
However, the usual understanding is that knowledge is not the same as action, and that on different days, at different
moments, in different circumstances, with different momentary motivations or constraints, a teacher’s knowledge may
manifest itself in different ways and different actions, and not always in the way that we wish.
This distinction having been made, we will limit our focus in this paper to teacher knowledge, and not include
teachers’ actions.

3. The concept of communicativeness in language teaching

There have been varied attempts to define the concept referred to by the term Communicative Language Teaching
(or the acronym CLT) in the literature since it was posited in the 1970’s as a methodological alternative, and much
discussion about what it consists of and whether or not anyone is actually doing “it”. This concept has also been central
in teacher education programs around the world. In spite of this literature, we know little about what teachers really
think, know and believe about CLT, and how these understandings develop. Research on teacher knowledge in the field
of language teaching methodology has been, for the most part, limited to questionnaires and surveys in which teachers
state their knowledge and beliefs (e.g., Karavas-Doukas, 1996; Mangubhai et al., 2004; Sato and Kleinsasser, 1999;
Savignon, 1991, 2007). Taking the two dimensions discussed above into account, this research has focused primarily
on the theoretical and impersonal ends of the spectra, eliciting what teachers say they believe, and attempting to get an
overall view of teachers’ beliefs in general. However, current accounts of postmethod pedagogy in language teaching
(Brown, 2002; Kumaravadivelu, 2001) critique monolithic notions of a communicative method and suggest that, for
teachers, there is no impersonal answer to the question “what is communicative teaching?” and that our knowledge of
it cannot be entirely captured theoretically.
Consequently, there is a need to study the interpretative processes through which individual teachers develop their
understandings of communicativeness in teaching language.

3.1. The study

The study reported here was carried out to examine the development of teachers’ knowledge of communicativeness
in language teaching in the specific case of six newly-graduated language teachers in Turkey. As noted above, the
study did not attempt to examine the teachers’ classroom practices; rather, it attempted to access different aspects of
the teachers’ knowledge in a more indirect manner. The participants in the study had graduated from the same B.A
program in English Language Education offered by a prominent university in Turkey in Spring, 2008, after having
undergone more than 10 years of previous language learning experience in an educational system where grammar-
based teaching was the norm. They all had participated in at least one-term teacher training which included
observing EFL classes, and a year-long practicum where they taught EFL classes. Three of them are currently teaching
at schools in Turkey while two are pursuing their M.A degrees in the U.S., and four of them had at least one-term
studying/teaching experience abroad where English is spoken as a first language.
Although the study was not longitudinal, the data was collected in two phases. The first phase examined teachers’
background knowledge of communicative language teaching as a more abstract entity reflecting what they were taught in
 D. Woods, H. Çakır / System 39 (2011) 381e390 387

the teacher education program. This phase included, in addition to a background survey and an examination of the
culminating philosophy statement produced at the end of their teacher education program, a sentence-completion task and
follow-up interview related to their understandings of “communicative language teaching”. The sentence-completion task
took ten sets of words/phrases related to the common principles or themes taken from the descriptions and definitions in
literature on communicative language teaching, and required the teachers to put them into sentences which articulated
their own views. The follow-up interview allowed the participants to clarify and elaborate on their responses.
The second phase of the study elicited their perceptions in a more situated manner by having them reflect on
specific classroom processes that they observed in videotaped clips of classroom teaching. It required the participants
to view a videotape of three authentic lessons from an English for Academic Purposes program in a Canadian
university, in which a Canadian ESL instructor carried out instruction using a variety of different types of activities,
tasks, and strategies. A questionnaire drew their attention to six main activities and elicited their views about the
communicativeness of each. A follow-up interview explored their responses in more depth, starting in an open-ended
manner where they could respond more freely and spontaneously, followed by a more structured process in which they
were posed specific questions (e.g. What was it about this activity that you found (un)communicative? Why did you
(dis)like it? etc.) that arose out of their previous discussion.
The analysis took shape within an ongoing interaction with the data. For each participant, recurrent terms and
themes were identified and the emergent patterns provided the blueprint for further analysis, as they signaled issues of
particular significance for the participants. In the survey, the questionnaires, teaching philosophies and initial inter-
view, the responses were categorized based on whether the participants were referring to their personal experiences of
learning and teaching or to the information they had learned in their courses and readings, and sorted according to the
factors that were described as relevant in leading the teacher to a certain belief stated in the initial interview. The
analysis in the initial phase produced questions for them to elaborate on during the follow-up observational interview,
and a further cycle of analysis was done, examining the results of all participants in light of both (i) a synthesis of the
principles of communicative language teaching described in the literature, and (ii) the evaluation of the activities by
the instructor who carried out the teaching in the recorded classes.

3.2. Results

From phase one, which elicited teachers’ abstract theoretical knowledge about communicative language teaching
methodology, it was found that, when elicited in this manner, all the teachers “impersonally” referred to e almost
reciting e the stereotypical characteristics of communicative language teaching that had been verbalized in the
literature and taught in their courses. They used this “abstract” knowledge when they were asked more conceptual and
out-of-context questions about the characteristics and premises of communicative language teaching.
However, there was nonetheless an important element of personalization that occurred e their own personal beliefs
played a role in their choice of which aspects of communicativeness to emphasize. That is, when discussing the
characteristics of communicative teaching, the emphasis they chose was not by referring exclusively to the theory that
they had learned throughout their schooling, but drawing from their own experiences and stories. Their focus in
discussing their theoretical knowledge about communicative language teaching included reference to such things as
the type of instruction they had received when learning English, the drama courses they had previously taken, the
experience they had gained abroad, the contextual factors of the school they were currently teaching in, their current
thesis topics and the readings they were currently engaged in, as well as aspects of their personalities. For instance,
Teacher A emphasized, in her own terms “socially appropriate language” production and “real life-like interaction”,
which became evident in her own experience as a learner and her current studies. During her studies in the U.S. and
England, she grew to appreciate what for her was the uppermost importance of being able to interact in English with
her friends in their social environment. In addition, her theoretical interest in pragmatics (the topic of her MA thesis)
led her to the idea that speech acts are teachable in English, and that communicative teaching allows for the teaching of
the daily functions and uses of language. In other words, the participants’ theoretical knowledge of communicative
language teaching, although reference was made to the concepts as they were taught in their courses, were colored by
their experiences and this produced a personalization of the theoretical information they had read or been taught.
In the second phase, which produced more spontaneous reflections by the participants while viewing the recorded
activities and lessons, two points emerged as important. Firstly, there were a number of contradictions between the
participants’ previously articulated theoretical knowledge and the more spontaneous practical knowledge that became
388 D. Woods, H. Çakır / System 39 (2011) 381e390

evident during the viewing sessions. The observations of the recorded practice brought the teachers face to face with
some of their previously articulated views about the principles of communicative language teaching, and the clash or
“hotspot” (Woods, 1996) led them to a reconsideration of their stated beliefs and to a dynamic evolution in their
understandings of communicativeness in language teaching.
Although initially, Teacher A seemed not to base her understandings of communicative teaching on the theoretical
principles she had been taught and sounded as if she did not hold any preconceptions about the method, she did not
conceal her surprise when she viewed a grammar-focused “exercise”, as she labeled it, being implemented in a very
communicative way. During the follow-up interview about that lesson, she explicated this interpretation, saying that:
The activity was very communicative. I would not consider the exercise so called ‘sentence combining’ as
a communicative one ever. And I would think of it as an individual work and imagine it done in a non-
communicative way: students are combining the sentences and the teacher is checking them. But when I
saw it done in a real classroom context I got to understand that an activity that might sound or feel non-
communicative can be turned into a communicative one.
Another example of the interaction between theoretical knowledge and the more practical understandings elicited
occurred with Teacher C. In her theoretical understanding, she drew a lot from the literature about what CLT
recommends for language classrooms. Initially, while viewing the activities in the lesson, she was quite critical about
the activities in terms of their communicativeness. Yet, in the follow-up interview, she took the initiative to look at the
lesson again and to re-answer the questionnaire. When asked the reason, she stated that:
At the beginning, I thought the activities did not fit in the CLT framework, as in an ideal classroom grammar
should be understood implicitly and more indirect emphasis would have fitted in the CLT framework better.
Yet, I found the activities quite relevant and actually effective. So, I wanted to reconsider my evaluation.
Interestingly, the participant teachers’ practical knowledge as elicited in response to the recorded activities was
closer to the views of the instructor who carried out the teaching than to both the principles expressed in the literature
and their own original articulation of their understandings. The participants themselves noted that some activities
would not be considered communicative in the abstract, but when they saw how the activities were actually carried out
in the classroom, they began to perceive an underlying “communicativeness”, and thus began to rethink their
assumptions and categorizations.
For those participants who were currently engaged in teaching, the observations they made about the recorded
activities brought to the surface contradiction between the knowledge about CLT received from their teacher
education courses and their own practice, i.e. what they saw and did in their own actual classroom contexts. In the face
of this, the teachers noted how they had had to redevelop their own understandings of communicativeness in teaching.
Teacher B, who was teaching at a state school, had many contextual constraints such as the proficiency level of her
students, the national curriculum and the nationwide tests that she had to cope with in her attempt to teach English
communicatively. Thus, she was compelled to develop a more realistic conception of communicativeness in language
teaching; she had to “leave what theory and CLT argues and focus on [her] own theory of CLT”. Teacher E, teaching at
a private school where she had fewer constraints hindering the implementation of CLT in a form more closely
connected to its theoretical criteria, nonetheless also continued to develop her own theory of CLT. In her case, she used
the merits of the context surrounding her teaching to provide her with opportunities and experiences which inspired
her to constantly re-form her own beliefs about communicativeness in language teaching. Yet it was when viewing and
reflecting on the recorded activities and articulating their views that these teachers began to perceive a coherence in
their own personal knowledge with regard to the concept of communicativeness.

4. Conclusion

The study of teachers’ understandings of communicative language teaching demonstrates several interesting
aspects of knowledge. The study makes evident that theoretical and non-personal teacher knowledge, as derived from
the literature and teacher education courses, is highly valued and considered “correct” but, at the same time, is isolated
from the teacher’s experience. However, once it is connected to the more fine-grained texture of actual experience, the
theoretical concept is deconstructed, personalized and reinterpreted. At the same time, when confronted by this
 D. Woods, H. Çakır / System 39 (2011) 381e390 389

Theoretical knowledge
Personal knowledge Impersonal knowledge

Practical Knowledge

Fig. 3. Interactions in the two dimensions of teacher knowledge.

personalized view of theoretical knowledge, experience comes into awareness and is often reanalyzed as a result,
resulting in a more overt awareness of its coherence on the part of the teacher.
One way in which this impersonal knowledge is personalized is through a process of reflection and transformation
that occurs when the impersonal knowledge is placed in juxtaposition to an individual’s related experiences. In the study
described above, the juxtaposition of their theoretical knowledge about CLTas a method learned in their teacher training
studies with their practically-derived understandings of “communicativeness in teaching language” that surfaced when
they viewed the classroom activities led to changes and developments in their “knowledge”, and allowed them to realize
that the information that they received about a method does not possess pre-determined characteristics that can be
applied in every context. This realization thereby allowed them to gain confidence in their own personal construction of
knowledge. It could be said that the use of the term communicative language teaching in their teacher education courses
led to a situation where the “map” (the theoretical knowledge of CLT) was mistaken for the “territory” (classrooms in
which there are contextually-driven ranges of communicativeness). Once it was reanalyzed as “communicativeness in
language teaching”, it became a more flexible and context-driven conception, which could be readily adapted according
to teachers’ practical experiences of observing and practicing teaching. On the other hand, practical knowledge (that
comes out of experience) becomes articulated and rises to the level of awareness when it is confronted with theoretical
knowledge. In other words, when a teacher reflects on practice, and begins to articulate his or her “practical” knowledge,
it begins to be theorized and to inform his or her theoretical knowledge.
This study allows us to posit relationships in these two dimensions of teacher knowledge (as in Fig. 3), reflecting
the finding that, rather than there being a direct connection between impersonal theoretical knowledge and practice,
impersonal knowledge must be personalized through a process of interpretation stemming from a teacher’s own
experience.
The implication of this way of conceiving of teacher knowledge is relevant for teacher educators, as well as for
researchers. If we acknowledge that impersonal knowledge must be interpreted through experience and thereby
personalized, in order to be used by teachers in their practice, it implies two important caveats. The first is that we must
be wary of the assumption in teacher education programs that learning concepts is primarily a matter of “learning the
meaning of terms”. The second is that we must be wary of the assumption in research on teaching that the concepts
referred to by particular terms have an independent pre-determined reality that can be passed unchanged from one
researcher to another; returning to Borg’s argument at the beginning of this article, an attempt at a “conceptual
synthesis” can never be entirely successful. In both cases, that of teachers and that of researchers, new understandings
evolve first by going beyond the terms and developing personal conceptions through experience, and then by re-
theorizing them through verbal articulation, and sharing them through rhetorical expression.

References

Abelson, R., 1979. Differences between belief systems and knowledge systems. Cognitive Science 3, 355e366.
Barcelos, A.M.F., 2003. Researching beliefs about SLA: a critical review. In: Kalaja, P., Barcelos, A.M.F. (Eds.), Beliefs About SLA: New
Approaches to Research. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 7e34.
Bateson, G., 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
390 D. Woods, H. Çakır / System 39 (2011) 381e390

Borg, S., 2005. Experience, knowledge about language, and classroom experience in teaching grammar. In: Bartels, N. (Ed.), Applied Linguistics
and Language Teacher Education. Springer, New York, pp. 325e340.
Borg, S., 2006. Teacher Cognition and Language Education: Research and Practice. Continuum, London.
Brown, H.D., 2002. English language teaching in the “post-method” era: towards better diagnosis, treatment, and assessment. In: Richards, J.C.,
Renandya, W.A. (Eds.), Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 9e18.
Bruner, J., 1973. Beyond the Information Given: Studies in the Psychology of Knowing. W. W. Norton, Oxford, England.
Calderhead, J., 1988. The development of knowledge structures in learning to teach. In: Calderhead, J. (Ed.), Exploring Teachers’ Thinking.
Cassell, London, pp. 24e104.
Calderhead, J., 1996. Teachers: beliefs and knowledge. In: Berliner, D.C., Calfee, R.C. (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology. Macmillan,
New York, pp. 25e709.
Clark, C.M., Peterson, P.L., 1986. Teachers’ thought processes. In: Wittrock, M.C. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, third ed. Macmillan,
New York, pp. 255e296.
Connelly, F.M., Clandinin, D.J., 1987. Teachers’ personal knowledge: what counts as “personal” in studies of the personal. Journal of Curriculum
Studies 19, 487e500.
Connelly, F.M., Clandinin, D.J., 1988. Teachers as Curriculum Planners, Narratives of Experience. Teachers College Press, New York.
Connelly, F.M., Clandinin, J., 1996. Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes: teacher stories e stories of teachers e school stories e stories
of schools. Educational Researcher 25, 24e30.
Elbaz, F., 1981. The teacher’s “practical knowledge”: a report of a case study. Curriculum Inquiry 11, 43e71.
Farrell, T.S.C., 2007. Failing the practicum: narrowing the gap between expectations and reality with reflective practice. TESOL Quarterly 41,
193e202.
Freeman, D., Johnson, K., 1998. Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly 32, 397e417.
Gatbonton, E., 1999. Investigating experienced ESL teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. The Modern Language Journal 83, 35e50.
Grossman, P.L., 1989. A study in contrast: sources of pedagogical content knowledge for secondary English. Journal of Teacher Education 40,
24e31.
Hoy, W., Davis, A.H., Pape, S.J., 2006. Teacher knowledge and beliefs. In: Alexander, P.A., Winne, P.H. (Eds.), Handbook of Educational
Psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Johnson, K.E., 1992. The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices during literacy instruction for non-native speakers of English.
Journal of Reading Behavior 24, 83e108.
Karavas-Doukas, E., 1996. Using attitude scales to investigate teachers’ attitudes to the communicative approach. ELT Journal 50, 187e198.
Kumaravadivelu, B., 2001. Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly 35, 537e560.
Lee, I., 2009. Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT Journal 63, 13e22.
Mangubhai, F., Marland, P., Dashwood, A., Son, J.B., 2004. Teaching a foreign language: one teacher’s practical theory. Teaching and Teacher
Education 20, 291e311.
Meijer, P.C., Verloop, N., Beijaard, D., 1999. Exploring language teachers’ practical knowledge about teaching reading comprehension. Teaching
and Teacher Education 15, 59e84.
National Institute of Education, 1975. Teaching as Clinical Information Processing. Report of Panel 6, National Conference on Studies in
Teaching National Institute of Education, Washington, DC.
Pajares, M.F., 1992. Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research 62, 307e322.
Sato, K., Kleinsasser, R.C., 1999. Communicative language teaching (CLT): practical understandings. Modern Language Journal 83, 494e517.
Savignon, S.J., 1991. Communicative language teaching: state of the art. TESOL Quarterly 25, 261e277.
Savignon, S.J., 2007. Beyond communicative language teaching: what’s ahead? Journal of Pragmatics 39, 207e220.
Sendan, F., Roberts, J., 1998. Orhan: a case study in the development of a student teachers’ personal theories. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and
Practice 4, 229e244.
Shulman, L.S., 1986. Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher 15, 4e14.
Tomlin, R., Villa, V., 1994. Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition16, 183e203.
Vygotsky, L.S., 1987. Thinking and speech. In: Rieber, R.W., Carton, A.S. (Eds.), The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky, Volume 1: Problems of
General Psychology. Plenum, New York Trans. N. Minick.
Wells, G., 1994. Learning and teaching "scientific concepts": Vygotsky’s ideas revisited. Paper Presented at Conference: Vygotsky and the Human
Sciences. Moscow, Sept. 1994. Retrieved from http://people.ucsc.edu/wgwells/Files/Papers_Folder/ScientificConcepts.pdf [accessed 10.01.10].
Wette, R., 2010. Professional knowledge in action: how experienced ESOL teachers respond to feedback from learners within syllabus and
contextual constraints. System 38, 569e579.
Whorf, B., 1956. In: Carroll, J. (Ed.), Language Thought and Reality: Selected Writings. MIT Press, Boston.
Wilson, S.M., Shulman, L.S., Richert, A.E., 1987. ‘150 different ways’ of knowing: representations of knowledge in teaching. In: Calderhead, J.
(Ed.), Exploring Teachers’ Thinking. Cassell, London, pp. 24e104.
Woods, D., 1996. Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching: Beliefs, Decision Making and Classroom Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Woods, D., 1997. Decision-making in language learning: a lens for examining learner cognition. The language teacher online. Retrieved from
http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/files/97/oct/woods.html [accessed 20.12.09].
Woods, D., 2009. Review of teacher cognition and language education: research and practice. The Canadian Modern Language Review 65,
511e513.