Competence Dossier
Subject-Specific Competence
TQA 2024–25 Competence Definition
The teacher has in-depth, accurate, and pedagogically organised knowledge of the subject. They can make disciplinary knowledge and thinking transparent to learners, connect content to students' prior knowledge and lived experience, and identify and address common misconceptions. (TQA 2024–25)
Competence Claim
Subject-specific competence refers to a teacher's ability to master subject knowledge in such a way that it can be selected, structured, adapted, and contextualised meaningfully for learners. In secondary and vocational education, this competence extends beyond subject knowledge alone and also includes subject didactics, curriculum alignment, and the ability to connect theoretical content of professional practice and assessment requirements (Geerts & Van Kralingen, 2018; Ur, 2012). When I started my internship in MBO vocational education, I was genuinely taken aback by the way English was taught. My initial expectation, shaped by my own experience as a student and during my degree, was that English would strongly focus on grammar rules, literature, and essay writing. However, I quickly discovered that in MBO this was not the central focus. Instead, English was primarily oriented towards the student's vocational field or, in the case of keuzedelen, towards exam preparation for the central assessments, where relevance, communication, and applicability were more important than literary or grammatical depth. This realisation, and the journey of adapting my subject knowledge to this vocational reality, is what defines my development of subject-specific competence.
Subject Knowledge → Learner Meaning Map
Subject Concept
Deep disciplinary knowledge
Learning Difficulty
Known misconceptions / entry barriers
Teaching Decision
Pedagogical translation
Learner Response
Observable engagement / understanding
Evidence
Documented proof of impact
Development Narrative
These answers follow the TQA prompt: what knowledge and skills I gained, how I applied them, and what this added to my professional repertoire.
Question 1
What subject knowledge and disciplinary understanding have you developed or deepened during this assessment period?
I deepened my understanding of English as it functions in vocational education: CEFR levels, MBO exam expectations, technical and vocational vocabulary, professional communication, oral presentation language, and the relationship between English and students' project work. A significant part of this development was recognising how my own background as a native speaker shaped my assumptions about language teaching — and learning to set those assumptions aside in favour of what MBO students actually need. I came to understand that communicative relevance and vocational applicability are the foundations of English in this context, as supported by communicative language teaching principles: "Language is best learned when it is used for meaningful communication rather than isolated knowledge of rules" (Richards & Rodgers, 2014).
Question 2
How have you applied that knowledge in your teaching, and what teaching decisions did it inform?
I applied this knowledge by differentiating language materials for mixed A1-B2 infrastructure groups, designing culturally relevant speaking and writing tasks for furniture classes around themes such as animals, travel, and food, and reframing presentation tasks to develop persuasive register in smart building classes. These choices helped students practise English through real vocational contexts rather than through disconnected language drills, and supported motivation by making English feel purposeful and personally relevant.
Question 3
What has this brought to your professional repertoire that was not there before?
This development has expanded my repertoire from general English delivery toward subject-informed, context-sensitive decision-making. I now think in terms of CEFR progression, vocational language functions, communicative purpose, and register — and I can adapt these to the specific learning situation I face. My next step is to document student language growth more systematically so the effect of these subject decisions is visible in the evidence over time.
STARR Cases (3)
Each case follows the full STARR structure: Situation → Task → Action → Result → Reflection → Theory → Impact → What I Would Do Differently → Feedback.