1

APPROVAL SHEET

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Teaching with specialization in English Language Arts, this Seminar paper entitled ―CONTENT-BASED GRAMMAR EXERCISES FOR TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS‖ prepared and submitted by MICHAEL M. MAGBANUA is hereby recommended for acceptance.

___________________________ EDILBERTA C. BALA Date Adviser Accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Teaching with Specialization in English Language Arts.

__________________________ NILDA R. SUNGA , Ph.D. Date Head, English Department __________________________ LYDIA P. LALUNIO Date Dean

College of Language, Linguistics and Literature

2

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This seminar paper would not have been made possible without the help of a number of people who tirelessly devoted their precious time and expertise in reviewing the manuscripts, offering valuable suggestions for improvement and for giving their insightful comments not to mention their selfless sharing of references and other relevant resources.

Hence, my heartfelt gratitude to the following: My highly encouraging colleagues in the College of Mary Immaculate, our Administrator; Ms. Pia Marie Andres, the President; and most especially to Mrs. Cecille Santos-Andres, the Chairman of the Board, for her endearing moral and financial support while on my way of completing my MA units till the completion of this much coveted Degree.

My BEEd students, most especially our first batch of graduates—whom I consider as my inspiration in this undertaking; my former IV – BSEd – English majors; BSBio; Engineering; and BIT students of Bulacan State University (Malolos Campus); and STI College-Balagtas, my grass root in college teaching, whom I also owed a lot, most specifically to kindhearted couples Mr. and Mrs. Kerwin C. Kaw and the old faculty and staff. I should also acknowledge my beloved church mates in Balagtas Christian Church and Ministries for their undying prayers for my household and myself. I also would like to remember those former and present ELT classmates and professors who have enriched my experience in English language teaching. I gained not only pedagogical enrichment, but friendship as well.

Prof. Edilberta C. Bala of PNU, my patient considerate adviser, who tirelessly gave her most valued time in proofreading, revising and recommending this paper for approval

3

DEDICATION

To

My beloved family; My most treasured friends;

STI College-Balagtas; BSU-Malolos English Faculty;

My churchmates; my former and present students; and

My CMI family

I wholeheartedly dedicate this humble undertaking…

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page i

Acknowledgement ii

Dedication iii – iv

Abstract v

CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM and ITS SETTING 1 - 10

Introduction

Statement of the Problem

Purpose of the Study

Significance of the Studying

Scope and Delimitation

Theoretical Framework

Conceptual Framework

Definition of Terms

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 11 - 70

CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES 71 - 72

CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF MATERIALS 73 -

182

The Grammar Exercises (with Key to Correction)

CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 183-185 BIBLIOGRAPHY 186-

192

APPENDICES 193-218

Appendix A: Schematic Diagram

5

Appendix B: Table of Test Specifications

Appendix C: Grammatical Descriptions

CURRICULUM VITAE 219-220

ABSTRACT

Name : Michael M. Magbanua

Title : Content-Based Grammar Exercises for Teacher Education

Students

Key Concepts :

Content –Based Language Instruction

Cognitive Academic Language Learning Instruction

Specialization : English Language Arts

Adviser : Prof. Edilberta C. Bala

A. Objectives

This study recognizes the effectiveness of content-based language instruction in the tertiary level particularly to Teacher Education students as the pedagogical basis in developing integrative grammar exercises.

B. Methodology

The researcher gathered related literatures and prepared

bibliographical sketch. He then prepared table of specifications, encoded reviewed articles. Finally, he utilized various professional literatures in teacher education as sources of grammar exercises.

6

C. The Materials

The teacher education exercises in ten grammatical structures

were categorized into three varying degrees of difficulty, that is, easy, average, and difficult. The design was patterned after Heaton‘s (1995). Hence, several of his models on item types like multiple choice, completion types, and error recognition were used.

D. Conclusions

Specifically, this study found out that it is very tedious to prepare

content-based instructional materials such as this for this entails much time and skills since grammatical inputs from sources can be practically limited. That not all teacher education-reading materials contains a wide-range of grammatical inputs specifically perfect tenses, aspects, and preposition of movement, among others. Moreover, while the intended grammatical structures were not treated comprehensively, this may affect student‘s proficiency in answering the test items since common structures have been overly-used throughout the items.

E. Recommendations

Prospective researches must pilot the exercises to the teacher

education students to determine the effectiveness of the instructional material. ESL instructors are encouraged to allow students experience similar procedure of doing the instructional material as part of the course requirement in the program. On the other hand, peer critiquing of the sample exercises is also important. Samples must be viewed and evaluated by both the language and content instructors to determine the limitations and/or comprehensibility of the instructional material. Hence, development of rubrics for evaluation is highly recommended. As to LET in mind, writers then are encouraged to adapt the approach of test preparation instead of using the generic approach.

7

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

INTRODUCTION

This paper was inspired primarily of the teacher education students

(both the old and the present), and the in-service teachers whom the researcher

is indebted to. For one, after gained fruitful years of teaching in both

elementary and high school, he got a chance to teach early adults in college.

Those productive years he spent with four highly reputable college institutions

in his progressing province of Bulacan made him consider writing this humble

paper.

Surprisingly what he found out was, both his present and old college

students did not make any marked difference in language proficiency, or the

facility in grammar usage. ―Never mind the kind of English of vocational –

technical students, or the welder, masons…‖ as one professor, lamented. ―But

do not ignore the ‗how bad‘ our teacher education students ‗ English are,‖ she

argued. Can you think of the wisdom behind this eyebrow – raising statement?

It‘s but whose English is being criticized with a great populace? The favorite

subject of the mimicry and indignation from students, co-teachers, evaluators,

and parents—aren‘t its teacher‘s English? (Gonzales, 2004)

This is a perennial problem in which the researcher believes needs

special attention by almost all teacher education institutions today. Evaluators‘

8

feed back to most student teachers‘ demonstration teaching (or even the usual

daily classroom presentation) would always include faulty grammar on top, next

ton teaching methodology, mastery of the subject matter, and classroom

management.

Now that the researcher is already a full-pledged student teacher

supervisor, similarly, he sees how relevant developing instructional materials

be, which would best cater to innumerable student teachers‘ weakness in

grammar usage; since the approach embraces the principle of learning both

language and content. (Brinton, 1997).

To reiterate Gonzales‘ sentiment over our teacher education applicants is

that they might be of course familiar with the teaching techniques, approaches

and all those things, hence, they get high rate. However, they lost the job

because of poor grammar. You would really pity these teacher applicants seeing

them desperately leaving the demonstration room. But who‘s to blame? There

are several factors include. But let me point you to what most educators have

tried out and proven effective at their own respects. Content-Based Instruction

(popularly known as the CBI) has been adapted across the country. In the

Philippines, our present basic education curriculum is patterned after this

innovative approach to teaching and learning. Would-be teachers have to

immediate goals to accomplish, that is, to get a teaching slot, and to pass the

LET. Now, to achieve this, one must be essentially competent in both

communication skills and their understanding about the content of LET.

9

Similarly, Colinares (2002) believes that one of the effective strategies

that will focus and nourish the interest of teacher education students is the

utilization of professional education materials for the grammar review lessons.

Needless to state, a prospective teacher has to undergo an intensive review of

grammar because once in the service, s/he would have to use, if not, teach the

subject. The use of the content education subjects as the springboard for

lessons in English enables one to hit two birds with one stone—a review both in

grammar and for the teacher‘ s licensure examination. Thus, this integrative

structuralist trend in language teaching and testing invariably heightens one‘s

interest and subsequently enhances potent learning.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The primary concern of this study is to find the theoretical, and

pedagogical bases of CBI and identify the most frequently used grammatical

structures of professional education subjects.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This paper points out two major purposes, as follows: Provide the teacher

education students with relevant instructional materials in learning

grammatical structures; alongside keeping them familiarized with important

professional education concepts, and then offer ESL college instructors with

10

alternative language teaching-testing materials, other than the conventional

generic approach to testing grammar competence.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This paper is very useful for several reasons. Different grammar

exercises will make students interestingly discover their strengths and

weaknesses to various grammatical structures. They may acquire grammatical

proficiency both in reading, and particularly in writing. The instructional

material will make English instructor highly motivated as s/he tries to see the

relevance of the approach; since the content is being used as a stimulus in

language learning. This may simplify the teaching procedures since answer

keys to all grammar exercises are given right after each area. This would

certainly be very helpful to English teachers who also mentor grammar areas

(i.e structural analysis and error identification) of LET Review. Moreover, not a

few ESL teachers consider the different grammar exercises as effective

supplementary activities to general approach of teaching and testing of

grammar proficiency. Finally, ProfEd instructors would benefit a lot since

meaningful content learning among his/her students is being achieved; and

S/he could save instructional time and effort since retention of the learned

material or lesson is being maximized through integration.

11

SCOPE AND DELIMITATION

This paper primarily involved students who were taking teacher

education programs—Bachelor of Early Childhood Education (BECEd); Bachelor

of Elementary Education (BEEd); Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSEd);

Bachelor of Science in Industrial Education (BSIEd);and Bachelor of Science in

Education (BSE). They were considered in this study for these reasons:

To date the researcher, aside from a professional teacher, also chairs the

Education Department of the College of Mary Immaculate. He also assumes

supervisory duty to thirty off-campus practice teachers. Being the trusted

English instructor of the college, he appropriately put in top of his mind none

other than, but his very own department. Furthermore, on Education student

comparatively lags behind other students of Engineering, Information

Technology, Accountancy, and Nursing as far as grammar proficiency is

concern.

The researcher used professional trends education materials like

textbooks, periodicals, journals, interactive multi media devices, as well as

internet-based articles about teaching and education. Although locally authored

materials were have become the top choice, foreign education books were also

given importance in this study. This is so, since the approach, (CBLI) embodies

functional grammar and contextualization (Halliday, 1976).

Ten (10) core areas of professional education were included, based on the

table of specifications of the Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET). These

12

include, Foundations of Education; Principles, Methods, Approaches,

Strategies and Techniques of Teaching; Test, Measurement and Evaluation;

Human Growth and Learning Development; Guidance and Counseling; and

Social Philosophies

For grammatical structures, the ten top-most weaknesses of students in

grammar were considered; hence, subject-verb agreement, verbs, prepositions,

verb tenses-aspect system, conjunctions, prepositions, nouns, phrases and

clauses, word form/function, wh-question, and yes- no question. Please refer to

Appendix B for the complete table of specifications of the grammar exercises.

The grammar exercises though higher levels can also utilize primarily

intended for freshman education students—most particularly for review,

mastery, or just for refresher purposes.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Beginning in 1970‘s interest in the teaching of ‗real-language‘ has

increased as scholars have become more and more interested in the language

used in various social and cultural settings. As a result, there has been a rapid

shift of research and practice from audiolingual and grammar-translation

methods to the exploration of communicative language teaching, and much

attention has been paid to focusing on global and integrative tasks, rather than

on discrete structures. Savignon, (1972) makes clear that ―communication

cannot take place in the absence of structure, or grammar, a set of shared

13

assumptions about how language works…‖ Therefore, as he continues, Canale

and Swain (1980) included grammatical competence into their model of

communicative competence. However, a review of the research starting from

1970‘s (Ellis, 1997) shows that communicative L2 teaching was perceived as a

departure from grammar in favor of focusing on the meaning only. Comparison

of communicative (also referred as meaning-based) to form-based (also referred

as structure-based) approaches in L2 teaching shows that communicative

language teaching enables students to perform spontaneously, but does not

guarantee linguistic accuracy of the utterances. On the other hand, form-based

approaches focus on the linguistic and grammatical structures, which makes

the speech grammatically accurate. But this accuracy is observed in prepared

speech only, and students lack the ability to produce spontaneous speech.

Integrative grammar teaching, which presupposes student‘s interaction

while learning, cab be viewed as a cognitive process of learning an L2 that

reflects the sociocultural theory proposed by the Russian psychologist Vygotsky

(1978). In talking about the development of a child‘s brain and his

socialization, Vygotsky argues that there is a strong relationship between

learning and cognitive development, in which cognition develops as a result of

social interaction and sharing the responsibility with a parent or a more

competent person.

Similar to Vygotsky‘s theory is the often-criticized Krashen‘s (1981, 1985)

Input Hypothesis¸ also well-known as the ―i+1‖ hypothesis. According to this

hypothesis, i represents student‘s current level of L2 proficiency and +1 is level

of the linguistic form or function beyond the present student‘s level. Krashen‘s

14

Input Hypothesis, and Vygotsky‘s Zone of Proximal Development are basically

describing the same cognitive process of social interaction in students‘

development. For Krashen, optimal input should be comprehensible, i.e.

focused on the meaning and not on the form.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The concept of developing the proposed grammar exercises for teacher

education students is mainly anchored again, on the law of exercise, as well as

several approaches and to the second language teaching, to cite—Cognitive

Academic Language Learning; Language Across Curriculum; Theme-Based

Approach; Whole Language Approach; English for Academic and Specific

Purposes; and the newer method, Content-Based Language Instruction.

The researcher‘s strategy to utilize principles of teaching and testing

grammar catches perforce the interest and attention of the learner who has the

Licensure Examination (LET) in mind. It easily falls within the realm of teaching

English for academic purposes and the content–oriented approach to English

instruction. (Harvey, 1987).

Taking the interest of students into account in terms of over learning of

materials past the point of mastery facilitates retention and learning. This leads

to an emphasis of the importance of teaching all aspects of grammar in context.

Appropriate contextualization can only be achieved if a teacher finds or

creates realistic situations, language texts that are meaningful to students.

15

Thus, contextualization is partly a matter of being faithful to the language, by

finding appropriate examples, and partly a matter of being responsive to

student‘s needs. (Murcia and Hilles, 1998)

Fig. 1 Paradigm of Content-Based Instruction in Language Teaching and Learning

The paradigm above graphically illustrates the significant role of

integrating content in teaching and testing grammar. It is therefore

hypothesized that mastery in both ways can be best achieved in an ESL

instructor uses integrative approaches, hence the CBI. This innovative

approach to language teaching usually come in varied forms respective of the

nature and purpose of target language competency.

Definition of Terms

Content-Based Instruction – is a teaching method that emphasizes learning

about something rather than learning about language. (Davies 2003)

16

Content-Based Language Instruction – is an innovative approach in which

second language is used as the medium of instruction for mathematics, science,

social studies, and other academic subjects. Instruction is usually given by a

language teacher or by a combination of the language and content teachers.

English for Academic Purpose – is the teaching and learning of English

specifically to acquire academic proficiency in a particular learning content area.

English for Special Purpose – refers to the teaching of a specific genre of mostly

technical English for students with specific goals, careers or fields of study.

Functional Grammar – is the name given to any of a range of functionally-based

approaches to the scientific study of language.

Whole Language Approach – commonly refereed to as Natural Approach learning

language in a meaningful context. It is developmental language model based on

the premise that youngsters acquire language (speaking, reading, and writing as

naturally as they learn to walk and talk, when they are invited to engage in self-

motivating activities that are stimulating, interesting, social, meaning-based,

purposeful, interactive and most of all enjoyable.)

17

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This part discusses thoroughly the readings done by the researcher as a

result of his surveys of professional books on language teaching and learning,

unpublished theses and dissertations, ESL periodicals, web-based articles, and

locally published textbooks, workbooks and worktexts. This chapter posits two

major concerns: the rationale and development of Content-Based Instruction,

and the theoretical issues in utilizing functional grammar to both language

teaching and testing. Locally made studies were also surveyed; that is to

determine the effect of this innovative approach among ESL teachers,

particularly to college teaching. Specifically, the presentation was organized in a

conceptual order. First part looks at the approach (the CBI)—the proponents;

the origins and precursors; the pedagogical definitions; the rationale; the

linguistic supports; related research conducted; the pedagogical implications;

strengths and limitations. Moreover, the researcher also surveyed related

studies that have been conducted locally and internationally.

Second part presents an in-depth discussion about the grammar usage,

which includes a closer look into definitions given by language

experts; current issues on the teaching and testing of grammar in the tertiary

level. Alongside with this, the researcher also surveyed six different locally

made worktext use in the teaching of grammar to college students.

18

Definitions and Origins of CBI

What do LAC, WLA, EAP, ESP, EST, CALLA, CALP, CBLI, CoBaLTT have

in common? Obviously, well-read ESL teachers would all agree that they‘re all

but initials buzzed in the field of language teaching and learning. Second,

researchers who share similar interest in studying innovative approaches in

intermarrying content and language in an ESL classroom could easily tell that

all these terminologies are anchored upon the principle of ―integration‖. While

known in various names, one could specifically point it out that all these

approaches are under the umbrella of what most language experts call Content-

Based Instruction.

Different experts in pedagogical linguistics like Blanton (1992), Brinton,

Snow & Wesche (1989), Crandall (1992) to name a few share a general concept

behind CBI. To sum it up, Content-Based Instruction is "...an approach to

language instruction in which the second or foreign language is used as a

medium of instruction for mathematics, science, social studies and other

academic subjects. It is the vehicle used for teaching and acquiring subject

specific knowledge.‖ (Crandall, 2006). Furthermore, it is based on the

underlying principle that successful material in a meaningful contextualized

form, with the primary focus on acquiring information and knowledge.

Likewise, Prof. Niki Peachey, in The British Council (2006) relates that

the focus of CBI lesson is on the topic or subject matter. During the lesson, the

students are focused on learning about something. This could be anything that

interests them from a serious science subject to their favorite pop star or even a

19

topical news story or film. They learn about this subject using the language

they are trying to learn, rather than their native language, as a tool for

developing knowledge and so they develop their linguistic ability in the target

language. This is thought to be a more natural way of developing language

ability and one that corresponds more to the way learners originally learn their

first language.

Parallel to Peachey‘s description, the Center for Advanced Research on

Language Acquisition, (CARLA 2006), of the University of Minnesota

enumerated the origins and definitions of CBI from different researchers.

Brinton & Maste (1997, p.2) for instance defined it as, ―…the integration of

particular content with language teaching aims...the concurrent teaching of

academic subject matter and second language skills". They further emphasized

that, ―…CBI views the target language largely as the vehicle through which

subject matter content is learned rather than as the immediate object of study".

Wesche (1993) on the other hand, claimed that, ―…CBI is aimed at the

development of use-oriented second and foreign language skills' and is

'distinguished by the concurrent learning of a specific content and related

language use skills‖.

What qualifies as 'content' in CBI? CARLA (2006) identifies common

viewpoints of the experts as ―a curriculum in which concepts were taught through

the foreign language ... appropriate to the grade level of the students..." Curtain

and Pesola (1994)

20

While Genesee (1994) suggests that content '...need not be academic; it

can include any topic, theme, or non-language issue of interest or importance to

the learners'. Met (1991) proposes that "... 'content' in content-based programs

represents material that is cognitively engaging and demanding for the learner,

and is material that extends beyond the target language or target culture"

She further claimed that,"...what we teach in any kind of content-based

course is not the content itself but some form of the discourse of that content—not,

for example, 'literature' itself (which can only be experienced) but how to analyze

literature...for every body of content that we recognize as such—like the physical

world or human cultural behavior—there is a discourse community—like physics

or anthropology—which provides us with the means to analyze, talk about, and

write about that content...Thus, for teachers the problem is how to acculturate

students to the relevant discourse communities, and for students the problem is

how to become acculturated to those communities" (Eskey, 1997).

With regards to its origin, Swain & Johnson (1997) accounts that the

approach is most often associated with the genesis of language immersion

education in Canada in 1965. However, they argued that content-based

instruction is hardly a new phenomenon.

Similarly, Crandall (1992) of the University of Maryland Baltimore

County reported that the number of language minority students in the United

States is dramatically escalating. Consequently, the American classroom now

is multiethnic, and multilingual at all levels. In response, a number of program

models have been developed to meet the needs of language programs that

integrate academic content into language instruction.

21

Related to Crandall‘s report, Dr. Thomas G. Sticht, President and Senior

Scientist of Applied Behavior & Cognitive Sciences, Inc. traced the root of CBI in

the early 40‘s. He revealed that in World War II, the military services conducted

extensive programs aimed at providing new recruits with reading skills of a

functional nature. Soldiers and sailors learned to read so they could

comprehend material about military life. Because the time for teaching literacy

was very limited, usually less than three months, the reading instructional

materials had the complexity of materials typically encountered by the end of

the fourth grade of public education, but they did not cover the breadth of

content that a typical fourth grader would have encountered. Rather, they

taught reading by emphasizing a relatively narrow body of content knowledge

about the military. Further, the readers were designed to build on the new

recruit's experiences and prior knowledge about the world acquired before

entering service. For instance, the Private Pete series starts with Pete at home

on the farm. Then he goes to a recruiter and signs up to join the Army, rides a

train to camp and is assigned to a barracks, and so forth. Because that is the

procedure the vast majority of new recruits in literacy programs followed in

joining the Army in the 1940's, this was content: prior knowledge-- that they

could talk about and comprehend, but they could not necessarily read words

like "farm," "recruiter," "train," or "barracks." (NCSALL, 2005)

Natural language acquisition occurs in context; natural language is never

learned divorced from meaning, and content-based instruction provides a

22

context for meaningful communication to occur (Curtain, 1995; Met, 1991);

second language acquisition increases with content-based language instruction,

because students learn language best when there is an emphasis on relevant,

meaningful content rather than on the language itself; "People do not learn

languages and then use them, but learn languages by using them" however,

both form and meaning are important and are not readily separable in language

learning (e.g., Lightbrown & Spada, 1993; Met, 1991; Wells, 1994).

CBI promotes negotiation of meaning, which is known to enhance

language acquisition (students should negotiate both form and content)

(Lightbrown & Spada, 1993).

Second language acquisition is enhanced by comprehensible input

(Krashen, 1982; 1985), which is a key pedagogical technique in content-based

instruction; however, comprehensible input alone does not suffice—students

need form-focused content instruction (an explicit focus on relevant and

contextually appropriate language forms to support content learning) (Lyster,

1987; Met, 1991; Swain, 1985).

Cummins' (1981) notion of Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency

(CALP) as contrasted with Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS)

shows that students need to be learning content while they are developing

CALP; there is not enough time to separate language and content learning;

23

postponing content instruction while students develop more advanced

(academic) language is not only impractical, but it also ignores students' needs,

interests, and cognitive levels (consider severe time constraints on language

study prescribed by U.S. higher education, (Byrnes, 2000).

CBI provides opportunities for Vygotskian-based concepts thought to

contribute to second language acquisition—negotiation in the Zone of Proximal

Development, the use of "private speech" (internally directed speech for problem-

solving and rehearsal), and student appropriation of learning tasks (e.g.,

Lantolf, 1994; Lantolf & Appel, 1994). Language learning becomes more

concrete rather than abstract (as in traditional language instruction where the

focus is on the language itself) (Genesee, 1994).

The integration of language and content in instruction respects the

specificity of functional language use (it recognizes that meaning changes

depending upon context) (Genesee, 1994). More sophisticated, complex

language is best taught within a framework that focuses on complex and

authentic content.

CBI lends itself to cooperative learning, which has been shown to result

in improved learning (Slavin, 1995; Crandall, 1993). CBI approaches, which

promote the importance of learning strategies, provide the curricular resources

24

for development of the strategic language and content learner (O'Malley &

Chamot, 1990).

CBI lends itself to the incorporation of a variety of thinking skills, and

learning strategies which lead to rich language development, e.g., information

gathering skills—absorbing, questioning; organizing skills—categorizing,

comparing, representing; analyzing skills—identifying main ideas, identifying

attributes and components, identifying relationships, patterns; generating skills—

inferring, predicting, estimating (ASCD, Dimensions of Thinking) (Curtain, 1995;

Met, 1991).

Research on extensive reading in a second language shows that reading

coherent extended materials leads to improved language abilities, greater

content-area learning, and higher motivation (Elley, 1991); the Georgetown

German program has based the curriculum on texts and genre and report

exciting results in students' speaking and writing proficiency Support for CBI

from Educational and Cognitive Psychology

Anderson (1990; 1993) has proposed a cognitive learning theory for

instruction that integrates attention to content and language. In this theory

skills (including language) and knowledge follow a general sequence of states of

learning from the cognitive stage (students notice and attend to information in

working memory; they engage in solving basic problems with the language and

25

concepts they're acquiring) to the associative stage (errors are corrected and

connections to related knowledge are strengthened; knowledge and skills become

proceduralized) to the autonomous stage (performance becomes automatic,

requiring little attentional effort; in this stage cognitive resources are feed up for

the next cycle of problem solving, concept learning).

The presentation of coherent and meaningful information leads to deeper

processing, which results in better learning (Anderson, 1990) and information

that is more elaborated is learned and recalled better. Information that has a

greater number of connections to related information promotes better learning

(it is more likely that content will have a greater number of connections to other

information) (Anderson, 1990).

Facts and skills taught in isolation need much more practice and

rehearsal before they can be internalized or put into long term memory;

coherently presented information (thematically organized) is easier to remember

and leads to improved learning (Singer, 1990); information that has a greater

number of connections to related information enhances learning, and content

acts as the driving force for the connections to be made.

Content-based instruction develops a wider range of discourse skills than

does traditional language instruction (because of the incorporation of higher

cognitive skills); Byrnes (2000) notes the increasing demands for high levels of

26

literacy in languages other than English. When planned thoughtfully, content-

based activities have the possibility of leading to "flow experiences," i.e., the

optimal experiences emerge when personal skills are matched by high challenge

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, in Grabe & Stoller, 1997 and Stoller, 2002).

Content-based instruction provides for cognitive engagement; tasks that

are intrinsically interesting and cognitively engaging will lead to more and better

opportunities for second language acquisition; this is particularly important

when one considers the inherent complexity of adult learning (Byrnes, 2000).

Content-based instruction emphasizes a connection to real life, real world skills

(Curtain, 1995); in content-based classes, students have more opportunities to

use the content knowledge and expertise they bring to class (they activate their

prior knowledge, which leads to increased learning of language and content

material).

Joann Crandall of the University of Baltimore County, in CAL Digest

(2006) concluded that integrated and content instruction offers a means by

which English as a second language (ESL) students can continue their

academic or cognitive development while they are also acquiring academic

language proficiency. It also offers a means by which foreign language students

can develop fuller proficiency in the foreign language they are studying. In

foreign language or two-way bilingual immersion programs, in which a portion

of the curriculum is taught through the foreign language, some type of

integrated language and content appears to be essential.

27

Research conducted in a variety of program models (Grabe & Stoller,

1997) has shown that content-based instruction results in language learning,

content learning, increased motivation and interest levels, and greater

opportunities for employment (where language abilities are necessary)—the

research has emerged in ESL K-12 contexts , FL K-12 (immersion and bilingual

programs), post-secondary FL and ESL contexts, and FLAC programs. CBI

allows for greater flexibility to be built into the curriculum and activities; there

are more opportunities to adjust to the needs and interests of students.

ERIC Digest (2006) also supports Sticth‘s (2006) claim on the principle of

CBI. ERIC further emphasized that an integrated language and content

instruction provides opportunities for learners to acquire a new language

through the study of academic discipline such as mathematics, science and

history. Also known as content-centered or contend based language learning

(CCLL/CBLL), this approach is an effective way for both English language

learners and learners of other languages to develop their language skills and

their academic skills at the same time. Programs that use content-centered

language learning include total and partial immersion, two-way (dual)

immersion, bilingual education, and sheltered English.

Stitch in NCSALL (2006) reflects that in adult education, including the

learning of English for speakers of other languages (ESOL), content-based

28

instruction is an instruction that focuses upon the substance or meaning of the

content that is being taught. He refuted that this is in contrast to "general

literacy" or "general language" instruction, which use topics or subject matter

simply as a vehicle for teaching reading and writing, or the grammar or other

"mechanics" of English language, as general processes (Brinton, Snow, &

Wesche, 1989). Various "general literacy" programs may also emphasize the

learning of general processes such as "learning to learn," "critical thinking," or

"problem solving" skills. In such instruction, the emphasis is upon developing

the general processes, and the content that is used is generally treated as of

only incidental interest.

Niki Peachey, teacher, trainer, and materials writer of The British

Council (2006), identified the advantages and disadvantages of CBI. Among the

advantages, he claimed that, this can make learning a language more

interesting and motivating. Students can use the language to fulfill a real

purpose, which can make students both more independent and confident.

Furthermore, students can also develop a much knowledge of the world

through CBI, which can feedback into improving, and supporting their general

educational needs.

CBI is also very popular among EAP (English for Academic Purposes)

teachers as it helps students to develop valuable study skills such as note

taking, summarizing and extracting key information from texts. Taking

information from different sources, re-evaluating and restructuring that

29

information can help students to develop very valuable thinking skills that can

then be transferred to other subjects.

Though the approach is perceived to be very effective, yet offers several

challenges to ESL/ESOL teachers. Again The British Council identified four

major limitations, like it does not focused on language learning, some students

may feel confused or may even feel that they aren‘t improving their language

skills. Deal with this by including some form of language focused follow-up

exercises to help draw attention to linguistic features within the materials and

consolidate any difficult vocabulary or grammar points.

Particularly in monolingual classes, the overuse of the student‘s native

language during parts of the lesson can be a problem. Because the lesson

explicitly focused on language practice students find it much easier and quicker

to use their mother tongue. Try sharing your rationale with students and

explain the benefits of using the target language rather than their mother

tongue.

It can be hard to find information sources and text that lower levels can

understand. Also the sharing of information in the target language may cause

great difficulties. A possible way around this at lower levels is either to use

texts in the student‘s native language or then get them use the target language

for the sharing of information and end product, or to have texts in the target

30

language, but allow the students to present the end product in their native

language. These options should reduce the level of challenge.

Some students may copy directly from the source texts they use to get

their information. Avoid this by designing tasks that demand students evaluate

the information in some way, to draw conclusions or actually to put it to some

practical use. Having information sources that have conflicting information can

also be helpful; as students have to decide which information they agree with or

most believe.

The Precursors of Content-Based Instruction

This is to reiterate what most language experts claimed about the

existence behind the principle of integration across discipline, and likewise,

emphasize that concept behind CBI is, actually no longer foreign to English

language teaching. (Crandall, 1992; Brinton, 1997; & Stitch, 2006). The

approach may somehow package in different box, but shows semblances in

substance; hence, the program models by Joann Crandall. Alongside with

Crandall‘s models, the researcher personally compiled these related ―integrative

approaches‖ and includes specific background for each. The first ten

approaches may have popularized prior to the widespread utilization of CBI

across the globe. Likewise, newer modifications of CBI would be dealt later of

the presentation, such as Language Across the Curriculum; Theme-Based

Approach; Whole Language Approach; Cognitive Academic Language Learning

31

Approach Cognitive; English for Academic Purposes; English for Specific

Purposes; Sheltered Subject Matter Teaching; Sheltered Instruction; and

Adjunct Model

Languages Across the Curriculum (LAC)

The LAC movement follows the example set by the Writing Across the

Curriculum (WAC) movement of the 1980s, which sought to use writing as a

central learning tool in classes outside the English department. Rather than

relegating writing instruction to classes in literature or composition, WAC

provides advice and assistance to students for the inculcation of the skills

needed for writing in each curricular specialty. Similarly, LAC works with

faculty to identify the specific vocabulary and genres that students need in

order to function effectively in another language in their respective disciplines

(Fichera & Straight, 1997).

LAC also draws upon the content-based language instruction movement

of the 1990s (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 1989; Krueger & Ryan, 1993; Stryker &

Leaver, 1997). Instruction that emphasizes purposeful comprehension and

communicative production yields superior receptive and expressive accuracy,

32

complexity, and fluency. In brief, students who learn language for a purpose

learn it better.

LAC aims to facilitate the use of languages in a variety of meaningful

contexts and to motivate and reward students for using their multilingual skills

in every class they take at each level in the university curriculum, thus

preparing them for the cross-cultural and multilingual demands and

opportunities of a global society (Consortium for Languages Across the

Curriculum, 1996).

Theme-Based Approach (TBA)

In these programs, a language curriculum is developed around selected

topics drawn from one content area (e.g. marketing) or from across the

curriculum (e.g. pollution and the environment). The goal is to assist learners in

developing general academic language skills through interesting and relevant

content.

Similarly, Brewer (2000), claims that theme-based approach is believed

to be the most productive in helping teachers design a developmentally

appropriate curriculum since the idea of integration is not a new one, ever since

the turn of the century when John Dewey (1859-1952) advocated the

organization of curriculum around projects that would interest and involve

children. This is grounded upon the premise that children in elementary days

33

had their reading class first thing in the morning, math right before lunch, and

science, in the afternoon. Yet when children learn outside of school, they learn

in wholes. For example, a child visiting tide pools could learn about many

things at once: language arts (learning vocabulary for the animals and plants

of the tide pools); physical skills (staying on top of the slippery rocks);

classification (noticing which animals are related; the environment (noticing

pollution or litter); family stories (hearing parents tell about when they visited

these tide pools as children); and so on. Thus, a child‘s learning experiences

outside school are not divisible into subject-matter areas. She further

suggested that organizing learning experiences around a theme can be

productive but if thematic teaching is to be successful, the theme must be

carefully selected, activities carefully planned, and evaluation of the theme and

of individual children‘s progress carefully monitored.

Whole Language Approach (WLA)

According to Smith (1982), whole language approach is commonly

referred to as natural approach of language learning in a meaningful context. It

is developmental language model based on the premise that youngsters acquire

language (speaking, reading, and writing) as naturally as they learn to walk and

talk; when they are invited to engage in self-motivating activities that are

stimulating, interesting, social, meaning-based, purposeful, interactive and

most of all, enjoyable.

34

Goodman (1986) supports the definition above. He said that the

philosophy of whole language is based on the concept that students need to

experience language as an integrated whole. It focuses on the need for an

integrated approach to language instruction within a context that is meaningful

to students. The approach is consistent with integrated language and content

instruction as both emphasize meaningful engagement and authentic language

use, and both link oral and written language development (Blanton, 1992).

Whole language strategies that have been implemented in content-centered

language classes include dialogue journals, reading response journals, learning

logs, process-based writing, and language experiences stories (Crandall, 1992).

In relation to this, Goodman, Calkins, and Atwell (1986) and Smith

(1987) in Villamin, et.al. (1994), identified the attributes of whole language

approach as follows: A language arts is an integrated curriculum; language

arts is learner-centered; language and life experiences are inseperable; language

learning is natural; language is used under real communication situations to

express ideas and feelings, thus encouraging social and personal development.

According to these researchers, whole language approach has two

fundamental goals, that is: (1) to use communication situations to express ideas

and feelings, and (2) to foster love of reading for enjoyment.

35

In this integrative approach, the teacher and the students work

collaboratively. Authentic texts or real children‘s literature—fairy tales, and

folktales, fables, legends, myths, poems, parables, and riddles—are used for

reading purposes. The teacher provides a lot of group interaction through a

variety of strategies: speech choir, jazz chants, chamber theater, reader‘s

theater, and finger plays. Comprehension is supported by active interpretation,

and is also enhanced by activating prior knowledge, using advance organizers

and prediction techniques. Listening and speaking activities pave the way for

setting the purpose, surveying the text, predicting outcomes, and considering

literary elements.

Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA)

This approach combines language, content, and learning strategy

instruction into a transitional ESL approach for upper elementary and

secondary students of intermediate or advanced English proficiency (Chamot &

O‘Malley, 1987).

English for Academic Purposes (EAP)

The emergence of subject content-based (as opposed to skill-based) EAP

courses in the 1980s (Brinton, Snow & Wesche 1989) raises the issue of which

types of skills and knowledge are necessary for EAP trainers to deliver effective

36

and professional courses for ESL/EFL students intending to follow college

degree programs in English speaking countries. By definition, English for

academic purpose is an integrative approach to teaching and learning in order

to achieve proficiency in a particular content area using the English language

as the medium of instruction. Krashen (1985) identified what he calls a

‗transition problem‘ to a perceived gap in the English Language and study skills

abilities of learners who have passed through traditional language classes, and

those required for study purposes within universities. He argues that subject

content-based curses can impart both subject knowledge and language

competence at the same time.

More recently, the work of Kasper (1997) has greatly strengthened the

evidence for effectiveness of content-based courses. She has reported both

improved language and content performance among students exposed to

content-based EAP programs, higher scores on measures of reading proficiency,

and higher pass rates on ESL courses. She also provides quantitative evidence

that such students establish and retain performance advantage over students

exposed to non-content-based EAP training. He work supports the views of

Benesch 1988, Guyer & Peterson 1988, and Snow & Brinton 1988, that

content-based programs facilitate ESL students‘ transition to academic

mainstream college courses, increasing the likelihood that such students will

gain a college degree.

The trend towards content-based EAP training program presents a clear

challenge to EAP instructors. How much longer will EAP training be done by

37

instructors who may lack specific background knowledge of their learner‘s

specialist disciplines? How much longer will the traditional emphasis on

training in language and study skills be regarded as adequate in the face of the

growing body persuasive evidence for the effectiveness of subject content-based

programs? It may therefore be necessary for EAP trainers to possess a certain

level of background knowledge in their students‘ academic subjects in order to

meet this challenge.

Timothy Bell of Kuwait University in The Internet TESL Journal (2002)

reveals the revised version of his paper given at the British Council – LAN-

ECSCS during a Project Conference in Bali on December 1996. The program

consisted of content-based English Language and study skills training in the

field of Biotechnology. The research, ―Do EAP Teachers Require Knowledge of

Their Students‘ Specialist Academic Subjects?‖ aimed to explore the issue of how

much, if any, subject content knowledge is required for EAP teachers to

successfully prepare their learners for academic study at tertiary level. It will

begin by considering the research evidence for the effectiveness of subject

content-based courses, and then proceed to describe two EAP programs given

at the Universities of Indonesia. Bell (2002), points out that in traditional, skill-

based, EAP courses, it has generally been thought that the trainer does not

require specialized academic knowledge of the learner‘s major subject of study.

This is because such training focused on developing language and study skills

and not on the academic subject itself. The learners, it is often argued, an deal

with complexities of terminology and ambiguities of subject content that may be

beyond the trainer‘s knowledge of the specialist subject. EAP trainers were

38

typically told to exploit queries about subject content, so as to provide

opportunities for the students to develop their fluency, produce extended

spoken discourse, and effectively share their knowledge of the subject.

English for Specific Purposes (ESP)

Laurence Anthony of the Department of Information and Computer

Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, of Okayama University of Science reported

that from the early 1960‘s, English for Specific Purposes (ESP) has grown as

one of the most prominent areas of EFL teaching today. Its development is

reflected in the increasing number of universities offering an MA in ESP and the

number of ESP courses offered overseas students in English speaking

countries. There is now a well-established international journal dedicated to

ESP discussion, ―English for Specific Purposes: An international journal‖, and

the ESP SIG groups of the IATEL and TESOL are always active at their national

conferences. In Japan, for instance, the ESP movement has shown a slow but

definite growth over the past few years. In particular, increased interest has

been spurred as a result of the Mombusho‘s decision in 1994 to largely hand

over control of university curriculums to the universities themselves. This has

led to a rapid growth in English courses.

In the Philippines, ESP had been a controversial issue particularly in the

eighties. Lucero (1984) in Carreon (1992) reported that some of the problems

associated with ESP ―theory‖ stemmed mainly from confusion and disagreement

39

over the definition of English for Specific Purposes: What is ESP—is it an

approach, a method, or a theory? Is it the teaching of technical and scientific

language? Are its aims purely utilitarian? How specific is it—are the students

taught English only for the performance of engineering? How much knowledge

of, say, engineering should the ESP teacher have? Why can‘t the ESP teacher

confine herself to the teaching of language instead of venturing into the

discipline of science and technology?

In her report, Carreon (1992), roughly classified the definitions and views

about ESP as register analysis, ESP as a rhetorical or discourse approach, ESP

as a communicative approach, and ESP as target situation analysis.

She further argued that those who viewed ESP in terms of register

analysis focused on the teaching of the grammatical and lexical features of

scientific and technical language. Lacking the sophisticated background for

linguistic analysis, however may have interpreted this mainly as teaching

grammar using technical or scientific subject matter; others interpret it as

teaching the vocabulary items their students encounter in their engineering of

biology class.

Now, those who defined ESP in terms of the rhetorical approach, Carreon

(1992) explained that these advocates acknowledged the importance of teaching

Filipino students to view language in the context of discourse units and

40

situations. Lessons focus on the teaching of rhetorical forms acknowledged

being the most commonly used in science, technology, and business. In

addition to textual features, the more enlightened view of this approach stresses

the importance of teaching second language learners the organization and

logical process underlying particular discourse forms. It, however, has placed a

rather heavy emphasis on production and the completion of whole tasks or

texts. As a result, ESP has been viewed as mainly task-oriented and product-

oriented.

On the other hand, ESP‘s association with the communicative approach

had resulted in creative and lively English classes. This is one feature of ESP

that has been well-received by Filipino language teachers. In fact, some of them

according to Carreon (1992) tend to think that the two approaches are one and

the same. Unfortunately, the focus on the use of language for communication

had also become associated with the notion of de-emphasizing grammar of with

teaching grammar ―incidentally‖. Many teachers who have known no other

approach to language teaching than the grammatical and structural often use

this last point as an argument against ESP. Their assumption in this case is

that linguistic competence or the knowledge of rules and correct linguistic

forms necessarily precedes language use. So that those who may accept ESP

―in principle‖ and accept the communicative approach ―in principle‖ do so only

as far as they apply to Filipino student who are already fairly proficient in the

English language. For students who can barely express themselves in English,

many of those teachers diagnosed that what they need is more practice in

grammar, not ESP.

41

Finally, Carreon (1992) recommended that there is a great need for needs

analysis. According to her, there is much argument, however, regarding whose

needs are to be investigated, how the analysis is to be conducted; what model

should be used; and how the results ought to be used. More interesting is how

the interpretation of ―target situation‖ and ―authenticity‖ has sometimes

followed the extreme case of using whole texts lifted directly from textbooks,

professional books, and journals without consideration for factors such as

intended audience, level of difficulty, potential for creative language lessons.

Carreon (1992) concluded in her report that to a non-restricting view of

ESP and the integration of educational goals in ESP program, the acquisition of

a solid background in basic linguistics and the principles and practices of

second language learning and teaching appears to be the key to a better

understanding of ESP and consequently, it is hope, to more effective ESP

teaching.

Another program model related to CBI is the sheltered subject matter

teaching. Crandall (2006) in Brinton, Snow & Wesche, 1989 describes that this

approach involves adapting the language of texts or tasks and use of certain

methods familiar to language teachers (demonstrations, visuals, graphic

organizers, or cooperative work) to make instruction more accessible to students

of different English proficiency levels. This type of instruction is also called

42

sheltered English or language sensitive content instruction and is given by the

regular classroom or content teacher, or by a language teacher with special

expertise in another academic area.

On the other hand, in a sheltered instruction, a content curriculum is

adapted to accommodate students‘ limited proficiency in the language of

instruction. This model was originally developed for elementary foreign

language immersion programs to enable some portion of the curriculum to be

taught through the foreign language (Geneseee, 1987 in Crandall 2006). It is

commonly used in immersion and two-way bilingual programs (Met, 1991) and

has been adapted for use in second language programs with large numbers of

limited English proficient students or intermediate or advanced English

proficiency.

This model links a specific language learning course with a content

course in which both second language learners and native English speakers are

enrolled (Crandall, 2006). The courses share a content base, but the focus of

instruction differs. The language teacher emphasizes language skills, such as

academic or writing, while the content teacher focuses on traditional academic

concepts. This model requires substantial coordination between the language

and content teacher; usually the ESL teacher makes the extra effort of

becoming familiar with the content. An adjunct program is usually limited to

cases where student shave language skills that are sufficiently advance to

43

enable them to participate in content instruction with English speaking

students.

Margueritte Ann Snow, professor at California State University & Donna

M. Brinton, Academic Coordinator of EFL Service Courses and lecturer in the

Department of Applied Linguistics & TESOL at the University of California in

CATESOL News 1986 defined adjunct model of language instruction as a cross-

curricular instructional program designed to meet the linguistic and academic

needs of university students. In this model, students are enrolled concurrently

in two linked courses—a language course (e.g. Intermediate ESL) and a content

course (e.g., Introductory Psychology). The rationale underlying the model is

that the two courses share a content base and complement each other in terms

of mutually-coordinated assignments (Wesche , 1985 in Snow & Brinton, 1986).

An important feature of the model is the integration of nonnative speakers with

native speakers in the content course to insure the authenticity of the academic

demands placed upon the students. Equally important, however, is the

―sheltering‖ of non-native speakers in the ESL component in the model. In this

way, the particular language needs of second language learners, such as

persistent grammar and writing error patterns, can be addressed directly.

They further explained that the adjunct model of language instruction

provides an ideal framework for an English for academic purpose setting. With

the focus in the language class on essential modes of academic writing,

academic reading, study skill development, and treatment of persistent

44

structural errors, students are being prepared to transfer these skills to their

content courses. The activities of the content-based language class are geared

to stimulate students to think and learn in the target language by requiring

them to synthesize information from the content-area lectures and readings.

These materials provide content for students to discuss and write about, thus

providing and authentic context for integrating the four traditional language

skills.

An underlying pedagogical assumption of this framework is that student

motivation in the language class will increase in direct proportion o the

relevance of its activities, and, in turn, student success in this content course

will reflect the carefully coordinated efforts of this team approach.

Furthermore, the adjunct model offers ESL students a critical, but often

neglected, option. It gives them access to native speaker interaction and the

authentic, unsimplified language of academic test and lectures in the content

course, yet enables them to benefit from ESL instruction where their particular

language needs can be met.

According to Crandall, (2006) there are a variety of strategies and

techniques used in content-centered second language instruction. Here, the

discussion will be limited only to three types of strategies—cooperative learning

and other grouping strategies, task-based or experiential learning, and graphic

organizers—that increase attention to academic language learning, contribute

to content learning, and encourage development of thinking and study skills.

45

In cooperative learning, students of different linguistic and educational

backgrounds and different skill levels work together on a common task for a

common goal in either the language or the content classroom. Cooperative

groups encourage students to communicate, to share insights, test hypotheses,

and jointly construct knowledge. Depending on their language proficiency,

students can be assigned various roles as facilitator, recorder, reporter, or

illustrator. Other grouping strategies involve peer tutoring or pairing a second

language learner with a more English-proficient peer.

While in the task-based or experiential learning method, appropriate

contexts are provided for developing thinking and study skills as well as

language and academic concepts for students of different levels of language

proficiency. Students learn by carrying out specific tasks or projects: For

example, ―doing science‖ and not just reading about it. (Roseberry, Warren, &

Conant, 1992 in Crandall, 2006).

Villamin, Salazar, Bala & Suñga (1994), suggested five steps used in

constructing a graphic organizer as follows:

Identify the major objectives and concepts to be taught;

Summarize the key concepts in the form of a diagram or a table;

Have the students explain the graphic organizer. Ask them to discuss

the relationship among its parts. Have them provide some more examples;

46

Have them use graphic organizers in surveying text. Present an

incomplete diagram then ask the students to complete it by recalling or locating

appropriate terms and concepts; and

Give more examples for practice until the students learn to make graphic

organizers, which will aid them in making simple outlines.

This part tries to present the surveys and reviews of related researches

and studies, which have been conducted about the use of content-based

approach to language teaching and learning. The journal articles as well as e-

zines were reviewed in order to support of its pedagogical implications both

locally and across the globe.

Peter Master (1991), an associate professor in the Department of

Linguistics and Language Development at San Jose State University in San

Jose, California made a report about experimental content-based adjunct

program. The study, which was created by The English Institute at Cañada

College in California, was primarily for resident ESL students. The content

areas included the social sciences, western civilization, the natural and physical

sciences, and mathematics, each of which had an adjunct ESL component. The

students were initially required to take the whole series of courses, including a

college study skills class, and a counselor worked with the students to help

with personal problem during the program.

47

The apparent success of this pilot program speaks to the effectiveness of

both content-based instruction and the adjunct (or team teaching) model. It

also demonstrates how the principles of EAP (English for Academic Purposes)

instruction are perfectly reflected in the content-based approach, which relies

on needs analysis, (student, institutional, and professional), authentic

materials, and the communicative approach to language teaching in addressing

the language needs of nonnative-English-speaking students in public

education.

Pally Marcia‘s (in ERIC, March 1999) paper entitle ―Sustained Content-

Based Teaching for Academic Skills Development in ESL/EFL‖ discusses the

rationale for using content-based instruction (CBI) to teach English for

academic purposes to non-native speakers, drawing on recent research and

theory and on both personal experience and s small-scale study of college

students. Discussion begins with a look at college and graduates students‘

needs for both language skills and skills in argumentation, particularly in the

conventions of Anglo-American rhetoric. Topics addressed here include,

political, and psychosocial questions about English hegemony and the question

of who should learn these rhetorical conventions. Literature on sustained CBI

is then reviewed, offering support for it from experience with student

frustration, research on its effectiveness, and interviews with students who had

studied English in sustained CBI classes.

48

Loreta Kasper‘s New Technologies, New Literacies: Focus Discipline

Research and ESL Learning Communities on Language Learning & Technology

(Sept. 2000) describes a study of a content-based instructional model that

engages high intermediate English-as –a-Second Language students in

sustained content study within collaborative learning communities and uses

information technology resources to hone linguistic, academic, socioaffective,

and metacognitive skills through an activity called focus discipline.

In Forum, Oct-Dec 1997, ―Into, Through, and Beyond: A Framework to

Develop Content-Based Material‖, Donna M. Brinton & Christine Holten‘ s

described a lesson planning framework that content-based instruction teachers

can adapt to their instructional materials, student populations, and classroom

settings. Applying the framework to an authentic reading passage, the sample

lesson illustrates how teachers can develop activities that supplement the

content, increase student access to and comprehension of core materials, and

foster students‘ linguistic skills.

Fredricka Stoller in Forum (Oct-Dec 1997) provides a rationale for

content-based instruction and demonstration how project can be integrated

into content-based English-as-a-Second-Language classrooms. In her article,

―Project Work: A Means to Promote Language Content‖, she outlined the primary

characteristics of project work, introduced project work in its various

configurations, and presents practical guidelines for sequencing and developing

a project.

49

Jodi Crandall, in her ESL Magazine (July-Aug 1998) discusses the new,

expanded role of elementary English-as-a-Second Language (ESL) teachers,

focusing on content-based language instruction in elementary ESL and

examining the challenges of content-based language instruction for elementary

ESL (e.g. scarcity of good materials, and limited class time). Her article ―The

Expanding Role of the Elementary ESL Teacher: Doing More than Teaching

Language‖ described how to develop two sidebars thematic units and present a

simple thematic unit.

Wood Richard in ADFL Bulletin (Win 1999) suggested in his article, ―The

Imperative of Integrating Language Instruction with Instruction in Other Fields‖,

that, in order to prepare college students for the global marketplace, language

learning must be more fully integrated with the liberal arts. This means

rethinking the relationship between language competency and the study of

languages and literature. Literature in the target language should be studied at

the advanced level, because this offers students a chance to learn the subtleties

of the language.

―Trends and Issues in Content-Based Instruction‖ by Marguirette Ann

Snow in Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (1998) contains a review of

literature on content-based second-language instruction, in both English and

other second languages, describes the impact of content-based instruction on

50

instructional, assessment, and teacher-training practices and examines its role

as a setting for research and methodological innovation. It concludes with a

discussion of ongoing challenges.

The Philippine Normal University houses several studies related to

content-based instruction. It is interesting to note that these are but recent

studies. This is not doubt since the approach was only introduced to Philippine

language teaching context just a decade ago. The researcher surveyed twelve

(12) related studies from 1995 to 2005.

Tequillo (1995) identified in her prototype ESP-based lessons the

language functions in science and mathematics needed by teacher education

students. To determine the scope of the lesson, she developed her own needs

analysis through Survey Questionnaire.

Cortez (2002) used contents from Science/Nutrition and Dietetics,

Mathematics, Psychology, Education, Research, Tourism and Values Education.

In developing her materials, she made use of authentic materials taken from

newspapers, magazines, brochures, journals, and Internet downloads in which

she claimed as illustrative of single-text, multi-text, and whole chapter

strategies.

51

Estacio (2002) reported in her ESP-Based Instructional Materials

revealed that, fourth year high school students need to learn the correct form of

the following grammatical structures: subject-verb agreement, verb tenses, and

verb forms, transitional devices, prepositions, articles, modals, fragments and

adverbs. She further concluded that students need to understand how English

operates in science and technology, and learn the language uses, structure and

form. She also hypothesized that since the ESP instructional materials adapt

approach different from the traditional grammatical approach, the students

may encounter difficulty in using them without the teacher‘s guidance.

Calica (2003) found out that students are weak in the construction of

sentences using phrases and clauses as modifiers; using connectives and

transition expressions; and using the verb tense forms. She also discovered

that paramedic practicum in particular failed to learn well the use of clauses

and phrases as modifiers in the sentence; correct use of adjectives, connectives;

and construction of imperative sentences and prohibitions. The researcher

suggested that language teachers integrate need analysis into the lesson plan in

order to draw up a profile of communication needs and to validate specifically

the skills and linguistic forms to be taught. She further commented that

textbook writers and designers of instructional materials should identify the

needs of the specific group of learners and the educational and curriculum

setting into which the teaching of English must fit. She suggested too that

course designers should make course decisions based on the interpretation of

language needs analysis in order to conceptualize and organize the content of

every language program in an institution. School administrators should make

52

information about the learners‘ current state, and preferences and their desired

goal to identify the present language situation in view of the future language

needs. Finally, she reported that students themselves should be made to reflect

on their learning, to identify their needs and to gain more sense of ownership

and control of their learning through dialogue between them and the teachers

and among themselves.

Villalva (2004) in his study of integration of content and language

activities to fourth year high school students, he utilized Hutchinson‘s & Water‘

s Materials Design Model in analyzing the existing needs and difficulties of the

English teachers on having an integrated lesson based on the interviews

conducted and observation of classes.

Valerio, Mañgahas & Milan (2004) reported on their study that the

students had little difficulty in answering the items about reading

comprehension and vocabulary in a science-based reading text. In other words

students can understand a reading test using science as content material. In

their content-based language test for high school English, the researchers

further discovered that the students experienced difficulty in answering the

proofreading test and cloze test because these tests are seldom given to them.

They plainly suggested that in giving cloze test, there should be no deletions on

the first few sentences of the first paragraph in order to prepare the student for

language and reading proficiency. Lastly, the letter of the deleted word should

be given so that the student can have an idea on what it‘s all about.

53

Ramos (2004) offered that in preparing instructional materials in

teaching English to a certain group of students, the teacher must take into

consideration the following variables: nature, needs, problems and course

concentration of the students. This study is of great help to ministerial

students in preparing them for the vocation—e.g. preaching, leading, arguing,

counseling, teaching, explaining, among others. He used the activities in

English which are for ministerial students—ministerial-based. The contents

(e.g. grammar exercises, vocabulary and reading comprehension) of the material

are mostly taken from the Holy Bible.

Cunanan (2004) in his Content-Based Prototype Lesson Plans for Fourth

Year High School Students used varied authentic text type from the content

areas in teaching English. The selection and design of the lesson plan was

based on the observations of English classes, interview of teachers,

interpretation of answers to the questionnaires given to teachers regarding their

classroom practices especially in the use of content-based materials in English

language teaching, and the analysis of the PSSLC (Philippine Secondary

Schools Learning Competencies) which was the basis for the objectives. He

supports the experts‘ viewpoint that the use of integrated approach to English

language teaching provides for the development of listening, speaking, reading,

writing, and grammar skills. ESL teachers according to him should be well-

oriented to the field of their target users. They also need to collaborate with

content area teachers for better planning of their teaching. Similar to Cortez

54

(2002), the researcher also authentic materials ranging from recipes, medicine

labels, brochures, processes, diary entries, journals, biographies,

documentaries, news reports, etc.; all of which were taken from the content

areas and purposely for a more extensive type of listening, speaking, reading

and writing skills typically required in content disciplines.

To date, the most recent study which have been conducted by PNU ESL

researchers—Content-Based Supplementary Vocabulary Instructional Materials

for Freshmen Business Students (Bernardo, 2005) presents a collaborative work

between the researcher and the mathematics professors. He designed his Peer

Validation Questionnaire as to the evaluation of his instructional materials.

Part Two: On the Teaching and Testing of Grammar

This part reviews the different operational and conceptual definitions of

grammar given by various experts in language teaching. The researcher also

tries to present various literatures on the linguistic foundations of grammar, its

nature and types. This section also discusses issues and problems in the

teaching and testing of grammar, like—Should we teach grammar in school?;

What should include in the study of English grammar in college?; What type of

grammar should be taught in college?; What method or approach best fits in the

teaching of grammar?; How should grammar test look like? These, and a lot

more shall be the major concern in the discussion. Aside from the local

unpublished studies about developing instructional materials on grammar, the

researcher also cited the works of Larsen-Freeman--Celce-Murcia (1998), Rob

Batstone (1996) for the pedagogical approaches, and John Heaton (1998) and

55

Arthur Hughes (1996) for testing procedures and techniques. The researcher

also surveyed six different locally authored textbooks used in the teaching of

grammar in college—particularly to freshmen students.

Furthermore, the review posits three essential points of analysis: the

content, the approach used, and the inputs.

A. On the definitions, nature, and theoretical foundations of grammar

Language experts define grammar in several different ways. To sum,

grammar is the study of language which deals with the forms and structure of

words and with their customary arrangement in phrases and sentences or the

system of rules in speaking and writing a given language.

The Oxford American Dictionary in Ayoob (2006) defines grammar as:

―the study of words and the rule for their formation and their relationships to

each other in sentences; the rules themselves; speech or writing judged as good

or bad according to these rules‖

Why grammar? There is distinctly familiar about grammar. Linguists

have been studying it for centuries, and it remains an object of learning for

countless schoolchildren across the globe; To quote, Batstone (1994): ―It is an

integral part of the language we use in everyday communication. Although we

are probably not conscious of grammar in our own language use, as language

teachers, we can hardly fail to be aware of its influence. Grammar is a major

influence in syllabus design, the focal point of many classroom exercises, and the

key behind that familiar student query: Please, what is the rule here?‖‖

56

Moreover, Batstone (1994) claimed that language without grammar would

certainly leave us seriously handicapped. He clarified that language is not

random, but orderly. He explained that grammar is not a single, homogenous

‗object‘ but immensely broad and diverse phenomenon. He even identified what

he called perspectives on grammar, which he believed important for language

teaching; hence grammar as a product and a process. According to him, a

product perspective on grammar probably the most familiar to the majority of

teachers. The emphasis is on the component parts of the language system,

divided up into separate forms. Each form is the product of the grammarian‘s

analysis, and this product perspective on grammar can be of great value to

teachers and learners. By focusing on particular grammatical forms and their

associated meanings, teachers can help learners to develop their knowledge of

the grammatical system, and the meanings, which it helps to signal.

On the other hand, Batstone argued that this process is only one side of

the coin, because grammar is also a key element in the process of language use.

Grammar as process, is likewise thinking of the myriad ways in which it is

deployed from moment to moment in communication.

Sysoyev in the Internet TESL Journal addresses the issue of L2 grammar

teaching to ESL students with focus on form and meaning. A method of

integrative grammar teaching, consisting of three major stages (a) exploration,

57

(b) explanation, and (c) expression (EEE), is proposed. To illustrate how each of

these stages function, several experimental lessons were conducted. The paper

describes and discusses the lessons themselves, their rationale, and their

implementation of the proposed method. An evaluative questionnaire

conducted after experimental lessons, shows that students preferred to learn L2

grammar using the EEE method, as opposed to form-based or meaning based

only approaches.

As a possible solution, integrative grammar teaching combines form-

based with a meaning-based focus. Spada and Lightbrown (1993) have also

argued ―that form focused instruction and corrective feedback provided within

the context of communicative interaction can contribute positively to second

language development in both the short and long term‖. Thus, integration of

form and meaning is becoming increasingly important in current research.

Celce-Murcia, Dornyei and Thurell (1997) call it ―a turning point‖ in

communicative language teaching, in which ‗explicit, direct elements are

gaining significance in teaching communicative abilities and skills‖.

Kumaravadivelu call s this ―a principled communicative approach‖ (cited by

Celce-Murcia, Dornyei and Thurell, 1997). Of course, depending on their

students with different needs in the same group, or having various needs in the

classroom. Musumeci (1997) mentions the idea of connecting form and

meaning in grammar teaching as a developoing trend in reference to the

proficiency oriented curriculum. She points out that students should be able to

learn explicit grammar rules as well as have a chance to practice them in

communication in the authentic or simulation tasks. Interestingly, Musumeci

58

advocates giving students a chance to look at the language on a sentence level

to see how certain grammatical rules are applied.

According to Appel, and Lantolf (1994) and Lantolf and Pavlenko (1995),

the role of the mediator in teaching an L2 is placed heavily on an L2 teacher,

whose task is to direct students in the right direction.

What principle then supports the acquisition of grammar? According to

research, children by the age of five or six are usually fluent in their language.

They use it confidently without knowing the names of the parts and structures

they speak. They are users of Hartwell‘s Grammar 1. By the time children

reach school age, they are competent in the use of all five basic sentence

patterns (Hunts 1995 in Patterson 2006). They are able to use negatives,

passives, ellipses, and imperatives, (Gillet & Temple 1984 in Patterson 2006)

and they can use present, past, and future tenses (Loban 1976 in Patterson

2006). These grammatical concepts are first learned through oral speech,

through the immersion process that allows children to develop language. But

one of the traditional elements of a language arts program is isolated grammar

instruction. English teachers have traditionally placed great faith in the direct

benefits of separate grammar instruction. Specifically, they often teach

grammar in isolation from writing. The skills approach to literacy has its

foundation in behaviorist theory, which assumes that literacy is acquired

59

through direct separate skills instruction. These skills would then become

integrated through practice.

Atwell 1987, Meyer 1990 in Patterson 2006 reported that some teacher-

researchers found that grammar instruction can be far more effective if it is

incorporated into student-writing instruction.

Martha Kolln in Patterson 2006 stressed that students need to be

consciously aware of their own grammatical knowledge and that this can be

done through studying structures and labeling them. Meckel, on the other

hand, concluded that not enough time had been devoted to teaching grammar.

Meckel pointed out that the formal study of grammar does not have to be

isolated from student writing. (Weaver 1996). Kolln, however, points out that

flaws in the studies that advocate the de-emphasis of Prescriptive Grammar

instruction indicate that grammar should be taught. Her contention that

grammar as application is interesting, but her belief that this is ―proved‖

through pointing out flaws in previous studies is contestable.

Rei Noguchi in Patterson is another newer voice that is asking teachers

to think critically about the role of grammar in the classroom. His book

Grammar and the Teaching of Writing (1991) suggests that teachers limit the

use of grammatical terminology to those elements or features that are necessary

in helping students create fewer errors in their writing and to write more

effective sentences. Noguchi is one of the newer voices who believes students

60

must formulate their own operational descriptions of how language functions.

This is a move away from the cult of correctness and recognition that students

already have a vast knowledge of Grammar 1, even though they may not be able

to articulate it. Noguchi is attempting to lead teachers toward more Descriptive

Grammars that recognize the linguistic abilities of students. Noguchi, however,

acknowledges that power structures within the culture demand a level of

―correctness‖ in writers and suggests that teachers focus on the most common

―errors‖ in student writing and those ―errors that seem to most concern those

who wield power in corporate, academic, and political arenas.

According to Weaver, these are essentially errors in subject/verb

agreement, and the failure to recognize subordinate clauses and phrases as

incomplete sentences. Weaver also adds the misuses of commas in certain

situations, such as introductory phrases and the lack of commas with the use

of appositives and interrupters.

Patterson quoted both Susan Hunter and Ray Wallace for teachers to

rethink the role of grammar in the English classroom. They admit that too

great a focus on School or Traditional Grammars is not the answer, but they

add that this is not the only approach to grammar. Wallace believes the issue

has been skirted for too long, especially among college composition teachers,

and that these teachers need to find ways in which to reconnect grammar and

writing.

What should teachers know? Patterson suggests that in order to

understand the complexity of the grammar issue, teachers need to have some

61

understanding of the language acquisition process. And they need to

understand that children enter the classroom with thorough grounding in the

internalized system of rules of their language. They already know Grammar 1.

Teachers should also understand that, barring some cognitive impairment;

native speakers use ―good‖ grammar, even though the language they speak may

not be ―standard‖ English. They should also understand the problems in

thinking of grammars as a remedy for supposed inadequacies in students

writing and spoken language.

Bell Hooks (1994) in Patterson 2006 eloquently points out a few

problems with the notion of teaching grammar. In essence she asks ―whose

grammar are we teaching?‖ If the goal of grammar teaching (whether within the

context of writing or not) is to help students speak and write the language of

power, we must ask ourselves if this is a noble goal. And by assuming that

there IS a language of power, and that those who master it have a better chance

of being ―successful‖, what are we saying about those who do not, or will not,

speak that language?

It is but interesting to note in this paper the role of functional grammar,

in which this study used. Functional grammar is the name given to any of a

range of functionally-based approaches to the scientific study of language, such

as the grammar model developed by Simon Dik or Michael Halliday‘s Systemic

functional grammar; another important figure in recent linguistic functionalism

is Talmy Givon.

62

According to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, in the functional paradigm

a language is in the first place conceptualized as an instrument of social

interaction among human beings, used with the intention of establishing

communicative relationships. Within this paradigm one attempt to reveal the

instrumentality of language with respect to what people do and achieve with it

in a social interaction. A natural language, in other words, is seen as an

integrated part of the communicative competence of the natural language user.

Because of its emphasis on usage, communicative function, and the

social context of language, functional grammar differs significantly from other

linguistic theories, which stress purely formal approaches to grammar, for

instance Chomskyan generative grammar.

In the ―The Grammar Book (Second Edition)‖, Celce-Murcia & Larsen-

Freeman (1999) identified two approaches to teaching language. One is focused

primarily on language use, while the other is on language forms or analysis.

They clearly discussed what most language experts have been arguing over the

years now. However, they reported that the controversy did not entirely find a

concrete resolution. For, according to them, there is evidence to support both

points of view. They further explained that it is no uncommon to find learners

who, for whatever reason, find themselves in a new country or a new region of

their own country, who need to learn a new language, and who do so without

the benefit of formal instruction. They claimed also that learner‘s language

development may become arrested in an immersion environment, once their

communicative needs have been met.

63

They further argued that if the approach focuses on language analysis,

the connection should be easy to make. The more teachers know about

grammar, the more expeditiously they should be able to raise a learner‘s

consciousness about how the language works. They should be able to focus

learner‘s attention on the distinctive features of a particular grammatical form

in less time than it would take for the learner to notice them on his or her own.

They advised teachers to teach grammar explicitly by giving students rules and

exercises with the appropriate grammatical terminology. On the other hand,

they can also teach grammar implicitly as well, like asking students to engage

in particular tasks that require the use of certain structures. In addition, a

teacher might highlight properties of the grammatical structures by providing

negative evidence—that is, helping students to see what is not possible in

English. In this way, learners are encouraged to notice the gap between what

they are producing and what the target language requires. Teachers might also

expose students to language samples in which particular grammatical

structures are highlighted or are more prevalent than they might be in ordinary

communication.

They strongly recommend that ESL/EFL teachers must teach grammar

pedagogically, not linguistically, for linguistic grammars strive only for internal

consistency; are often inaccessible except to those specially trained to work

within a particular paradigm, while pedagogical grammars are eclectic in

nature. They further stressed out that grammar can be implicitly taught to

language students; hence the familiarization to metalanguage and grammatical

descriptions. What ESL/EFL teachers should be helping students to is be able

64

to use the structures of English accurately, meaningfully, and appropriately.

Thus, ESL/EFL teachers might better think of what they do as teaching

―grammaring‖—a skill—rather that teaching grammar as an area of knowledge.

(Larsen-Freeman 1991).

Jeremy Harmer (1987) in Villamin, Salazar, Bala & Suñga (1998)

presents a number of techniques for teaching grammar:

First, he differentiates covert grammar teaching from overt grammar

teaching.

Covert grammar teaching takes place when grammatical facts are hidden

from the students—even though they are learning the language. The students

may be asked to do an information gap activity or read text where new grammar

is practiced or introduced, but their attention will be drawn to the activity or to

the text and not to the grammar. The teachers help the students to acquire

and/or practice the language, but they do not draw conscious attention to any

of the grammatical facts of the language.

Overt grammar teaching means that the teacher actually provides the

students with grammatical rules and explanations—information is openly

presented , in other words. For example, the teacher explains how present

simple questions need do or does. Other examples are problem-solving and

discovery exercises that encourage the students to consider grammatical

information in some detail.

65

In overt grammar teaching, the teachers are explicit and open about the

grammar of the language, but with covert teaching, the teachers get the

students to work with the new language and hope that they will more or less

subconsciously absorb grammatical information, which will enable them to

acquire the language as a whole.

Harmer also states that, grammar teaching of both the overt and covert

kind has a real and important place in the classroom. At the beginning level,

the teachers are expected to do quite a lot of structure (and function) teaching

and less really free communicative activity—although emphasis is placed on

reading and listening. The teaching of grammar would be fairly covert since the

main aim is to get the students to practice and use the language as much as

possible. As the students learn more the balance would change, and at

intermediate levels the students would be involved in more communicative

activities and would have less grammar teaching. As students get more

advances, they can actively study grammar in more overt ways.

Harmer suggests the following presentation techniques: using charts;

dialogs; a mini situation; text for contrast; texts for grammar explanation;

visuals for a situation; modeling; isolation; visual demonstration; writing; time

lines; fingers; and explanation.

Marianne Celce-Murcia (1988), an American language specialist, states

the following steps in teaching grammar:

66

The first step is the preparation for grammar lesson. In preparing a

grammar lesson, the teacher must consult a variety of grammar reference books

and English as a second language (ESL) texts in order to establish how a

structure is formed, when it is used, and whether there are any particular rules

or exceptions governing its use.

The second step is, the grammar lesson which consists of four parts:

Presentation. In here, grammar structure is introduced, either

inductively or deductively. Selection should be made according to teacher

strengths, student preferences and the nature of the structure.

Focuses practice. In this step, the student manipulates the structure in

question while all other variables are held constant. The purpose is to allow

the student to gain control of the form without the added pressure and

distraction of trying to use the form for communication. The teacher should

not proceed to the next stage until most students have mastered at least the

form of the structure.

Communication practice. Here, the student engages in communicative

activities to practice the structure being learned.

Teacher feedback and correction. Although this is usually considered a

final step, it must take place throughout the lesson. A teacher‘s correction

67

strategy should probably change according to the phase of the lesson. For

example, during the second part of the lesson. Correction should be

predominantly straightforward and immediate. During the third part,

communication should not be interrupted. Instead, the teacher should take

note of errors and deal with them after the communicative exercises. There

is one element of correction that should remain constant: regard when

correction is made, the teachers‘ feedback should always attempt to engage

the student cognitively rather than to simply point out the error and provide

the appropriate target form.

Mario Rinvolucri (1984) in Villamin, Salazar, Bala & Suñga (1998)

suggests five types of activities in teaching grammar: competitive games;

collaborative sentence-making games; awareness activities; grammar through

drama; and miscellany.

Competitive games are traditional games modified to allow the students to

work in small groups and show themselves and the teacher how much or how

little grammar they know.

Collaborative sentence-making games are exercises in which the students

build sentences and paragraphs in cooperation with each other rather than in

competition. The teachers‘ role is to give silent feedback to individual students

and to the class but only when absolutely necessary.

Awareness activities help the teacher move right away from cognitive work

or grammar. The students are asked to write and say things about themselves

68

and people who are significant to them within a set of structures prescribed by

the teacher. The student focus on what they are saying not on the form they

are using. They control the content, while the teacher controls the structure.

Grammar through drama will have the students off their chairs practicing

grammar through movement, shouting, and writing on each other‘s back.

Miscellany consists of a ragbag of useful grammar-practicing activities.

Aside from the five types of activities presented by Rinvolucri, (in Villamin,

et.al. 1998), there are many other ways of teaching grammar. These include

the following:

Humanistic techniques. Gertrude Moskowitz (1978) introduced humanistic

techniques in language teaching. She presented exercises with two purposes:

linguistic and affective. The first purpose gives practice for grammar problem,

while the second purpose is intended to establish a warm, supportive,

nonthreatening climate in the classroom.

Using proverbs. Proverbs can be used in teaching grammar, since each

proverb has a grammar focus.

Communicative grammar teaching. Language teaching today is premised on

a theory which views learning as enjoyable and spontaneous; which learners

move in a stress-free environment; where they function as thinking, sensible,

and responsible individuals, where the teacher plays the role of a

backgrounder, facilitator, and guide; and where language is used, as a whole, in

context that provides a meaningful and interesting language practice.

69

Foreign and Local Studies/Researches on Grammar

The researcher has also tried to review several professional books, as well

as local textbooks used in the teaching and testing of grammar in school, most

especially in college. Among of which include the work of the noted Halliday in

1985. His book, ―An Introduction to Functional Grammar‖ is a very clear and

eloquent outline of the nature of grammar as a communicative system,

including its origin and its potential.

Rutherford‘s (1987) ―Second Language Grammar: Learning and Teaching‖

is an important and tightly argued book. Rutherford believes strongly that

grammar is intricately connected with discourse—of its nature, in learning, and

in language use. This book covers all these areas, and considers application of

this view of grammar for language teaching.

In 1988, Rutherford worked with Smith in their ―Grammar and Second

Language Teaching.‖ The book contains a very useful selection of papers,

including some important discussion of consciousness-raising and its relevance

to the teaching of grammar.

Widdowson in 1990, released his book, ―Aspects of Language Teaching‖

through the Oxford University Press. This is a concisely argued series of

essays, which covers and extends a number of the key areas discussed in this

book, both in terms of theory and of practice. Particularly noteworthy is the

paper ‗Grammar, nonsense, and learning‘.

70

In 2002, McGrawHill, published the book of Milada Broukal‘s ―Grammar

Form and Function 3.‖ Her skill book feature flexible approach to grammar

instruction for she integrates study of new structures (form) with information on

how to use them and what they mean (function). The book also ensures

accurate production and fluent use of grammar. It has a review section that

offers consolidated practice of key structures, and at the same time guide

students to use grammar in meaningful conversations. Aside from writing

assignments, which allows students build their composition skills like narrating

and describing. Students, and teacher alike would surely love her skill book for

it offers multiple assessment tools for them to use. The book, by the way is

accompanied by website activities which would develop a real-world listening

and reading skills.

Another book that is noteworthy for ESL teachers is the ―Grammar for

English Language Teachers‖. This book by Cambridge University Press also

comes with a chapter-to-chapter extension exercise, which has been made

available at http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/elt. The author encourages teachers to

appreciate the range of factors, which affect grammatical choices, but also

introduces the rules of thumb presented to learners in course materials.

Consolidated exercises provide an opportunity for teachers to test the rules

against real language use and to evaluate classroom and reference materials.

The book is organized thematically, but also provides a short cut index at the

beginning for ease of reference. The author specifically designed this book for,

first, to prospective and practicing teachers studying language as part of a

degree in English or on courses such as those leading to teaching certification

71

and diplomas. Second, for teachers who want to continue learning and

exploring the grammar of English on their own, and, lastly, for teachers who do

and teachers who do not speak English as a first language.

―The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher‘s Course‖ by Marianne Celce-

Murcia & Diana Larsen-Freeman, with Howard Williams (1999). The second

edition of this book comes in two volumes, which was designed specifically to

help prospective and practicing teachers of English as a Second or Foreign

Language enhance their understanding of English grammar, expand their skills

in linguistic analysis, and develop a pedagogical approach to teaching English

grammar.

Each chapter of the grammar book is designed to lead readers

systematically from an understanding of the grammar structure to an ability to

use this understanding in the ESL/EFL classroom. After the first two

introductory chapters, each chapter includes: a core presentation of one

particular grammatical structure. Descriptions and examples draw upon the

latest linguistic research and include discussion of problems that ESL/EFL

students regularly encounter. It also offers suggestions for teaching various

aspects of each grammar structure to ESL/EFL students. Moreover, the book

contains comprehension and application exercises that enable readers to assess

their understanding of the material and practice their ability to apply what was

been presented.

The researcher also reviewed several studies of researchers of the

Philippine Normal University on the teaching of grammar. Some of which are

72

instructional materials intended to multilevel. In here, the researcher carefully

selected three related works of Macatangay (2001), Jalandoni (2004) and,

Maligalig (2005).

Macatangay‘s study, ―The English Plus Students of Dela Salle-Lipa: Their

Expectations, Language Weaknesses and Preferred Grammar Teaching

Techniques‖ he reported that respondents expected their grammar teachers to

solve complex structures governing grammatical rules and they should be given

immediate feedback after every communication activity. He also found that

students admitted their weaknesses in the following areas of English language

ranked accordingly: grammar, vocabulary, and idioms. He suggested of a

design of action plan, which would cover the English Department‘s long-term

goal in grammar teaching. The action plan would stress the importance of

giving pretest and posttest to students, preparing of syllabus and offering

recommendation for freshmen‘s loading and scheduling of subjects.

Likewise, Jalandoni (2004) found similar findings with Macatangay. She

related that college technical students need to learn the correct grammatical

structures: subject-verb agreement, verb tense and verb forms, transitional

devices, and prepositions. Her prototype instructional materials consisted of

sixteen lessons on the eight parts of speech. The exercises covered different

phases in language development especially in grammar have been sequenced

according to difficulty and appropriateness. Varied, short, and interesting

exercises have been made for reinforcement to the slow learners and fast

learners. Each lesson was defined first, discussed and followed by language

73

analysis. Evaluation and exercises were also provided to the learners to

stimulate the actual situation where freshmen and technical college students

can relate.

The recent study of Maligalig (2005), is a suggested material in teaching

grammar to freshman college students. She had designed thirty activities in

the form of dialogs, games, error analysis and writing activity. The materials

were communicative in nature. She shared the same report with other

researchers about the difficulties of college students in understanding verbs

specifically types and forms. She further reported that they were unable to use

correct tense and had difficulty in recognizing verbs in the sentences.

Of the different Philippine textbooks intended for the use of college

freshmen, the researcher discovered that none of these could effectively serve

the purpose of a functional way of learning grammar. It was found out

therefore that the common approach used in these textbooks was but linguistic,

and not pedagogical—as what Larsen-Freeman & Celce-Murcia (1999) strongly

advocate. Some even used parsing method in analyzing the sentence structure;

a grammar book heavily packed with lessons in poetry, novel, and art of

argumentation. Other authors would likely to camouflage under a description

of ―handbook‘‖, ―student‘s manual‖, and the like, yet, discussing all about the

rhetorics of writing, and worse is, pronunciation. In most cases, contents are in

generic. The only worktext that the researcher found similar to content-based

was the one exclusively used by one known university in Manila. Though

claimed to be as communicative, most of the exercises were but focused on

knowing the terminologies, (i.e. identifying whether the verb is present, past of

74

future tense; writing whether the nouns are abstract, common or proper, and

countless exercises that requires learners labeling the sentence parts instead of

developing the skill of writing correct ones.)

75

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the methodology of the study. The researcher

used descriptive method. Specifically, this study is descriptive-evaluative in

nature, since the design intends to appraise carefully the worthiness of CBI.

(Calmorin & Calmorin, 1995)

This study tries to present a prototype lesson in the teaching of

grammar to college through various content-based exercises exclusively

intended for teacher education students only. The material is not a module,

but typically a compilation of teacher-made exercises on grammar. This was so

because the researcher did not intend to give neither a pretest nor a posttest.

Since the needs analyses have already been identified beforehand, then, it is

administering a pretest has no use after all, just the way modules were meant

to. Instead, a summative evaluation through summative exam had been

designed specifically for such a purpose.

Initially, the researcher underwent in the following procedures. First,

related literatures were gathered and the prepared the bibliographical sketch.

Second, the articles were encoded, reviewed and surveyed. Lastly, grammar

exercises have been prepared utilizing various professional literatures in

teacher education. (Refer to Appendix A for the schematic diagram). The scope

of the grammar exercises was based on the result research of Patterson (2006),

Larsen-Freeman & Celce-Murcia (1994). Researchers Macatangay (2001),

Jalandoni (2004) and, Maligalig (2005) studies generally support the latter‘s

76

findings about ESL learner‘s weaknesses in grammar. The top ten most

frequently committed errors include—the subject-verb agreement; verb tense-

aspect system; conjunctions; prepositions; articles; nouns; word forms and

functions; phrases and clauses; wh-questions; and yes-no questions formulation.

Consequently, the researcher hypothesized this as a widespread, and is a

common picture of the need for improvement. Henceforth, the result of their

research had been considered as the basis for the needs analysis, instead of

giving a diagnostic test, a pretest nor a posttest. In other words, this study is

plainly a try out of an ESL instructor on integrating content to grammar

teaching.

The exercises were categorized into three varying degrees of difficulty,

that is, easy, average, and difficult. The design of the exercises was patterned

after Heaton‘s (1995). Several of his models on item types like, multiple choice,

completion items, and error-recognition, were utilized, and that is to ensure

functionality of the purpose.

77

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION OF MATERIALS

This chapter presents the materials which consist of ten of the ten

topmost identified areas of improvement as far as grammar usage is concern to

almost all college students as reflected in numerous studies conducted both

locally and internationally. All these grammar points were highlighted on each

unit. To ensure familiarity of a grammar lesson, the material briefly describes

the form (meaning) and function (usage) of a particular language structure. The

concepts were all taken from the ―The Grammar Book‖ of Larsen-Freeman &

Celce-Murcia (1999). The material, being presented subsentencially and

sentencially, comes in ten different grammar exercises in three varying levels of

difficulty. Again, on the exercises design, the researcher utilized J.B. Heaton‘s

models-- multiple item type; sentence completion, alternative response type, and

error identification. Finally, to gauge learner‘s mastery of the language

structures, the researcher also prepared a 100-item summative test on the ten

grammar structures. All grammar exercises are supported with a table of

specifications; table of descriptions; as well as separate keys to correction found

in the appendices.

78

CHAPTER V

Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations

This chapter presents the summary, the conclusions and

recommendations. This chapter also summarizes researches made by different

experts in the discipline and how these researches influence a majority of ESL

classroom teachers. This also answers questions raised in the statement of the

problem. Moreover, this part also reflects the researcher‘s insights on how

could this study are far improved, thus contribute to a more relevant and

functional language teaching and learning of grammar to tertiary level most

specifically to the teacher education students.

SUMMARY

It‘s but no doubt that numerous researchers all agree of the significant

role of using integrated approach in language teaching, testing, and learning.

Various literatures reveal that at present, researchers keep on discovering

efficient ways to maximize language learning through integration, hence,

Content-Based Instruction (or the CBI) is one of those approaches. However,

experts agree then that the approach is no longer new to most language

teachers. As a matter of fact, prior to CBI, teachers may not be aware that they

are actually using it on their respective ESL classes. That CBI is just simply a

matter of integrating a particular content with language. This can be seen in

79

the teacher-made classroom activities, either in reading, writing, speaking, or

grammar.

It must be noted then that while CBI is unknown to clueless ESL

teachers, experts may have somehow identified them using the popularized

approaches in ELT, like Whole Language Approach (WLA), Thematic Approach,

Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA), English for

Academic Purposes (EAP) and its adjuncts—(e.g. English for Science and

Technology; English for Business Education, etc.), English for Specific Purposes

(ESP) and its adjuncts also, like—English for Medicine/Paramedics; English for

Engineering; English for Vocational Purposes, etc.), Computer-Based Language

Learning and Teaching (CoBaLLT), and Content-Based Language Learning

Instructions (CBLLI) to name a few.

In the Philippines, in particular, researchers make use of the CBI

approach primarily in the teaching and testing of the parts of speech, and

writing to college learners. Similarly, there are a number of studies that also

explores the possibility of using authentic materials in developing reading

comprehension skills of students across levels most specifically to elementary

and high school.

Though the approaches come in different labels, experts claim that all

these promise effectiveness in teaching ESL as far as integrative approach is

concern.

80

CONCLUSIONS

The conclusion of this study is anchored on the findings. Preparation of

content-based instructional materials such as this (grammar exercises utilizing

teacher education reading materials) entails so much time and skill since

grammatical inputs are too limited. That not all teacher education-reading

materials (textbooks, in particular) contain a wide range of grammatical inputs

specifically perfect tenses, aspects, and preposition of movement, among others.

While the intended grammatical structures were not treated comprehensively,

this may affect student‘s proficiency in answering the test items since common

structures have been overly used throughout the items.

RECOMMENDATIONS

For further development of the design, the researcher wishes to

recommend that prospective researchers must take extra effort in gathering of

grammatical inputs should s/he intend to come up with a more comprehensive

sample of grammar exercises. Teachers should pilot the exercises to the teacher

education students to determine the effectiveness of the instructional material.

ESL instructors are encouraged to allow students experience similar procedure

of doing the instructional material as part of the course requirement in the

program (e.g. Preparation of Instructional Materials). Peer critiquing of the

sample exercises is also considered very essential. Samples must be viewed

and evaluated by both the language and content instructors to determine the

limitations and/or comprehensibility of the instructional material.

81

Development of rubrics for evaluation is objectively recommended. LET writers

are also encouraged to adapt the approach in presenting sample test in

grammar and/or reading comprehension instead of using generic approach.

82