Content-Based_Instruction

25 Content-Based Instruction Yoon (Christina) Heo Abstract Content-Based Instruction (CBI) has been found to be an effective approach to teaching English as a second language because with CBI, students can develop their language skills as well as gain access to new concepts through meaningful content. This paper reviews general information about the features of CBI, including its theoretical foundations and models. The paper also covers several issues to be considered in the application of CBI such as assessment of language and content, teacher education, and the use of CBI in the EFL classroom. The relationship between CBI and skill- based instruction, particularly in the teaching of writing, will also be discussed. Finally, I suggest that CBI can fit in well with broader principles of language teaching and learning in both ESL and EFL situations. Introduction Content-Based Instruction (CBI) has been defined as “the teaching of content or in- formation in the language being learned with little or no direct or explicit effort to teach the language itself separately from the content being taught” (Krahnke, as cited in Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 204). This teaching approach is considered by many researchers an effective and realistic teach- ing method in terms of combining language and content learning. According to Crandall (1999), CBI can be used in various ways de- pending on the skills being taught and in- cludes not only traditional teaching methods such as grammar-based instruction or vo- cabulary development but also contempo- rary approaches such as communicative language teaching and humanistic methods (p. 604). CBI is also supported by Krashen’s “Monitor Model”: if students are given comprehensible input, it is less difficult to learn the target language, and as a result, they can acquire (verses. learn) it. Krashen (1982) emphasized ways of decreasing learner anxiety, such as providing interesting texts as well as meaningful activities, which are comprehensible to learners, and CBI has the following essential features: “learning a language through academic content, engag- ing in activities, developing proficiency in academic discourse, fostering the develop- ment of effective learning strategies” (Cran- dall, p. 604). Thus, this methodology puts emphasis on “learning about something rather than learning about language” (p. 604). There are several issues which teachers should consider for an effective use of Content- Based ESL Instruction, including types, syl- labus design, and materials of CBI (Davies, 2003). Theoretical Foundations Content-Based Instruction is based on three main theories of language: “language is text- and discourse-based,” “language use draws on integrated skills,” and “language is pur- poseful” (p. 208). First, in Content-Based Instruction, language teaching focuses on how information and meaning from mean- ingful content are utilized in discourse or texts, not in single sentences. Next, the skills of the target language are not separate from each other, and they together are in- volved in all activities. For example, stu- dents in CBI are supposed to “read and take notes, listen and write a summary, or re- spond orally to things they have read or written” (p. 208). Moreover, grammar is considered a component of all language skills, not a separate one for language learn- ing. Lastly, using language is always for a certain purpose, and a key purpose of using language is to communicate meaning (pp. 208-209). According to Richards and Rodgers (2001), “language is purposeful” (p. 208). When learners have purposes, which may be “academic, vocational, social, or recrea- tional,” and concentrate on them, they can be motivated depending on how much their interest can be in their purposes (p. 208). Language also includes the main purpose, Administrator 高亮 Administrator 高亮 26 communication. To give students compre- hensible input for their purposes, teachers have to ponder how teachers would be able to communicate with students in the target language. Stryker and Leaver (1993), as cited in Richards and Rodgers (2001), suggested that teachers use the following examples: Foreigner talk or modifications that make the content more understand- able: modification includes simplifica- tion (e.g., use of shorter T units and clauses), well-formedness (e.g., using few deviations from standard usage), explicitness (e.g., speaking with nonre- duced pronunciation), regularization (e.g., use of canonical word order), and redundancy (e.g., highlighting impor- tant materials through simultaneous use of several linguistic mechanism. (p. 209) The views above are the foundations of Content-Based Instruction, and the theo- retical importance of CBI is that through CBI learners can “interact with authentic, contextualized, linguistically challenging ma- terials in a communicative and academic context” (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 4). CBI promotes three theoretical founda- tions: Krashen’s comprehensible input hy- pothesis, Cummins’s two-tiered skill model, and cognitive learning theory, which will be explained below. Krashen (1985) explained the differ- ence between learning and acquisition: even though both terms are used to describe sec- ond language skill development, acquisition is more closely related to the process of first language development, while learning is of- ten the case for second language develop- ment (p. 4). For example, immigrants to the US who are at young ages (i.e., before the critical period) may be said to acquire Eng- lish as a second language. They can develop the target language as their native language. Learning, on the other hand, involves adult learners such as those in ESL courses plan- ning to enter a university in the United States. Thus, Krashen believed that learning a second language should be similar to ac- quisition if it is to be effective: the focus of acquisition is on meaning rather than form. From this perspective, CBI is an effective teaching method in terms of “contextual- ized language curricula” (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 1989, as cited in Kasper, 2000, p. 4). Cummins’s two-tiered skill model (1981), as cited in Kasper (2000), showed that students should be supposed to de- velop these language skills through CBI: BICS, basic interpersonal communication skills (“the ability to converse with others and to articulate needs in the L2”) and CALP, cogni- tive academic language proficiency (“the ability to use the L2 both to understand complex, of- ten decontextualized linguistic structures, and to analyze, explore, and deconstruct the concepts presented in academic texts”) (p. 5). Cummins’s main idea was that it would be impossible for ESL learners to acquire academic language skills from general ESL classes and everyday conversation; to de- velop these skills, which the learners need in the next step of academic courses and regu- lar classes, they need “complex interdisci- plinary content” (p. 5). Therefore, content- based ESL instruction needs to include both the common features that other meth- ods have in ESL teaching and an integral part in language learning. Content-Based Instruction is used not only for teaching the target language, which is the same goal of other methods, but also for providing “a less abrupt transition before programs” (Crandall, 1995, p. 6). The third foundation of CBI is cogni- tive learning theory, in which it is believed that learning is accumulated and developed in several stages: first, the cognitive stage (the learners are developing the language skills through the required tasks), then, the associa- tive stage (they are more improved and have strengthened their skills, but still need sup- port to accomplish the tasks), and finally, the autonomous stage (they are able to “per- form the tasks automatically and autono- mously”) (Anderson, 1983, as cited in Kasper, 2000, p. 5). This theory maintains the idea that students progress in their learning through the stages listed above and that students require “extensive practice and feedback, as well as instruction in the use of various strategies” (Kasper, 2000, p. 5). Administrator 高亮 Administrator 高亮 27 In addition to these theories, Richards and Rodgers (2001) introduced another view on learning, which shows additional assumptions underlying the principles of CBI: People learn a second language most successfully when the information they are acquiring is perceived as interesting, useful, and leading to a desired goal. Some content areas are more useful as a basis for language learning than oth- ers. Students learn best when instruc- tion addresses students’ needs. Teach- ing builds on the previous experience of the learners. (pp. 209-211) Moreover, Snow and Brinton (1988) studied “essential modes of academic writ- ing, academic reading, study skills develop- ment and the treatment of persistent struc- tural errors” (p. 556). According to their study, the activities of CBI could enable learners to learn the target language by syn- thesizing all information and the new input from meaningful and authentic text and content. It could also make them integrate the four traditional skills through discus- sions and writing about the materials. In addition, if “a strong network of tutorial and counseling services, as well as an on- campus residential program and an organ- ized recreational and social program” can be offered to students, CBI can provide stu- dents with effective benefits in their learn- ing with the original content (p. 556). Models of CBI To design a content-based lesson, teachers should consider their linguistic, strategic, and cultural objectives. Through the class, students are supposed to improve their English skills, to learn strategies to be ap- plied in all subject areas, and to understand the culture of English-speaking people (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 211). More- over, according to Crandall (1999), second language instructional models (as described by several researchers including Edward (1984), Milk (1990), Mohan (1986), Tang (1993), Chamot (1994), O’Malley (1994), Enright (1988), McCloskey (1988), Spanos (1990), and Grabe (1997)) should be con- sidered with several features. They sug- gested that teacher should think about – “(a) learning a language by studying of aca- demic text, (b) focusing student attention on underlying knowledge and discourse structures of academic text, (c) developing students’ learning strategies, (d) focusing on holistic language development through inte- grated thematic units, (e) developing aca- demic language, skills, and discourse through the use of texts, tasks, and themes drawn from other content areas, and (f) fo- cusing on the development of tasks, themes, and topics” (Crandall, 1999, p. 606). Thus, in content-based language instruction, teachers should account for academic con- cepts and language skills at the same time. According to Davison and Williams (2001), as cited in Stoller (2004), courses taught through CBI present students with themes related to academic concepts so they can learn the language they need depending on “the weighting of different curricular ele- ments” (p. 268). As an example model, Martin (1990), as cited in Stryker and Leaver (1997) proposed? to initiate this approach with “thematic modules” from Krashen’s aspect (p. 14). It was found to be? an effi- cient? approach to try to apply CBI to the existing program, but teachers did not need to totally change all elements that the pro- gram had. They needed to make only mini- mal changes. Martin used “the modular format,” which “is self-contained and, therefore, flexible, movable, and relatively inexpensive to implement since elaborate interdisciplinary collaboration is not re- quired” (p. 15). There are several general subjects that are used in CBI: mathematics, science, and social studies. Cuevas (1981), as cited in Crandall (1995), successfully introduced the Second Language Approach to Mathematics Skills (SLAMS), which can be applied to regular mathematics lessons. It involves the objectives of CBI through mastering the mathematics concepts and the language skills. Thus, SLAMS was made up of two strands, one focusing on mathematics con- tent and the other, language skills (p. 32). Kessler and Quinn (n.d.), as cited in Cran- dall (1995) introduced Science Learning and Second Language Acquisition as an example Administrator 波浪线 Administrator 下划线 Administrator 下划线 28 of CBI: the lesson gives learners new sci- ence concepts through the text and enables them to acquire the language skills (p. 71). While the learners interact with the new in- put, they can develop their language skills. However, it is arguable that learners need a certain level of language fluency and profi- ciency (p. 71). To support the positive side of CBI, Penfield and Ornstein-Garlicia (1981), as cited in Crandall (1995) suggested that depending on the class situation, teach- ers may use the learners’ first language to introduce and discuss new scientific con- cepts (pp. 71-72). The effectiveness of teaching science through CBI is revealed in bilingual as well as monolingual English en- vironments. English can be developed along with learning science (p. 72). Finally, King, Fagan, Bratt, and Baer (n.d.), as cited in Crandall (1995), strongly believed that social studies classes taught through CBI would be excellent for second language development with the following class activities: “follow- ing directions, reading maps and charts, out- lining, note-taking, using textbooks, prepar- ing oral with written reports, interpreting cartoons, and using library references” (p. 108). Students are encouraged to learn new subject matter and are able to apply specific language skills for a certain purpose. Ac- cording to the researchers, social studies concepts are the most meaningful concepts to use when teaching language skills (p. 108). Thus, using CBI in social studies classes of CBI may “enhance and accelerate students’ language acquisition, as well as assist in the acculturation process” (p. 113). Not all schools are able to offer classes dedicated to CBI, but there are two alterna- tives: the sheltered model and the adjunct model of CBI (Davies, 2003). These enable students both to learn English skills in an ESL class situation and to experience the language usage in a real situation with their English-speaking peers. The difference be- tween the models explained above and the sheltered model is that the students can ob- tain assistance from two teachers. Accord- ing to an example in Davies (2003), this model was effectively applied to speakers of two languages, English and French, at the bilingual University of Ottawa. Generally, in this case, two teachers team teach. One teacher gives a short lecture and the other teacher checks the students’ understanding of the content and helps with any problems. The other model, called the adjunct model, is a kind of “EPA (English Proficiency As- sessment) or ESP (English for Special Pur- poses) class, where emphasis is placed on acquiring specific target vocabulary” (Da- vies, 2003). The classes are taught by ESL teachers, and the main purpose is to enable students to follow ordinary classes which they are required to take with other students speaking English as their native language. Some adjunctive classes are offered in the summer months before the beginning of a regular semester. Assessment of Language and Content in CBI Assessment of CBI can be a problematic component, and yet it is critical that instruc- tors evaluate students’ learning (Kasper, 2000, p. 19). Student performance in most ESL classes is evaluated by general assess- ment tasks such as “discrete, decontextual- ized tasks,” and their main focus is on lin- guistic structure or vocabulary (pp. 19-20). However, students in CBI classes cannot be evaluated in the traditional way because they were exposed to more input and content information through the class. According to Kasper (2000), “designing authentic and in- teractive content-based assessment” was required because learners in CBI had to “complete discourse level tasks” and the skills evaluated in the assessment were in an academic setting (p. 20). Students are re- quired to interact critically with academic materials in terms of meaningful and con- textualized text to analyze their knowledge (p. 20). Assessment of CBI should not be simple and isolated; students must be re- quired “to integrate information, to form, and to articulate their own opinions about the subject matter,” not to analyze the lin- guistic structure of the target language (p. 20). Crandall (1999) also mentioned that it would be impossible for teachers to “sepa- rate conceptual understanding from linguis- tic proficiency” in CBI when they want to 29 evaluate students’ learning (p. 608). With that thought, he suggested that teachers could make assessment of students’ learning through “paper and pencil tests to include journal entries, oral responses to questions or reports, demonstrations of understanding, and student projects” (p. 608). In addition, “checklists or inventories” can be used to assess language development: it may show each student’s mastery of the lesson includ- ing concepts and structure (p. 608). These methods have been developed as alternative strategies to assess students’ learning. Teacher Education for CBI Teacher education is a complex issue in CBI. Students in a CBI class are supposed to learn the target language and some concepts related to the content at the same time. It means that teachers should be knowledge- able in the two areas and effectively “com- bine language and content instruction” (Crandall, 1999, p. 608). According to Crandall (1999), teachers who are to teach the target language with CBI have to be trained in places where specialized teacher training for CBI exists such as in Florida and California in the United States, and in Australia (p. 608). Moreover, teacher educa- tion programs may be developed in collabo- rative projects, which are done between sci- ence or social studies teachers and language teachers (p. 608). Therefore, to be an ESL teacher for CBI, one needs sufficient time to master “co-planed curriculum and in- struction” (p. 608). Content-Based Instruction in the EFL Classroom The interest in Content-Based Instruction has spread to EFL classroom situations be- cause teachers believe that the language education in those contexts should be more like ESL situations. Even though the ap- proach cannot be applied in the same way, an alternative form called “the theme based model” has been introduced in some coun- tries (Davies, 2003). According to Davies, an EFL teacher and a content specialist can teach together for the theme-based CBI, the content is not as limited or specific as in an ESL classroom. Instead of the content that is generally used in ESL, the teacher can de- sign a syllabus that includes broad and vari- ous topics which students would be inter- ested in, and offer additional supplements from the Internet, newspapers, and other diverse reading sources organized by topics. This model is to teach both the content and language skills. The CBI EFL teachers should care about assessment as much as their ESL counterparts. Continuous assess- ment is needed in CBI and “daily quizzes, journals, and direct oral feedback” can be used (Davies, 2003). Their teaching phi- losophy is that learners’ motivation may be highly activated by interesting topics and content and that learners need to enjoy learning. Ther