Download - Content-based Instruction (CBI) in TESOL
1
Considering Content for
Language-learning Classrooms
Robert J. Dickey
Keimyung, Korea
past president, Korea TESOL
2
• “Prescriptive” vs. “Descriptive”• “Theory-driven” vs. “Reality-based”
• For classrooms “where a commitment has been made to content learning as well as language learning.”
3
I. General Introduction to CBI
1. Terms of Art
2. General Aims
3. Dissecting “content”
4
1. Terms of Art
Language Teaching Investigators are
NOT
Semanticists
5
www.content-english.orgContent-based Instruction (CBI) Content-based Language InstructionIntegration of Content and Language (content & language, ICL)Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Content-enriched / Content-focused / Content-centered / Content-drivenContent-sensitive / Content-oriented / Content-infused Theme-based / Topic-based / Discipline-based Sheltered Subject Matter Teaching Dual-focused Language InstructionTeaching (Content) Through English / Teaching Through Foreign LanguagesBilingual Integration of Languages and Disciplines (BILD) Immersion / Foreign Language Immersion Program (FLIP)English Across the Curriculum / Foreign Languages Across the Curriculum (FLAC) Enhanced Second Language Learning / Extended Language Instruction Learning with Languages / Learning through an additional languageIntegrated Curriculum Bridge ProgramCross-Curricular Teaching Interdisciplinary Teaching Four-handed foreign language instruction Learning skills based ELT / ESP Applied Languages
6
2. General Aims
• “Killing two birds with one stone”
• “Learning by Doing”
• “Language in Context”
“not talking about language, but using
language to learn language and content”
7
8
• Assumption of learner motivation through interest in content– Is that valid? “can’t please everyone”
• Distinguishing from other approaches– Not “HOW” to teach, but with what (“text”)– Does not dictate teacher & learner roles– Can be used with any other approach
• Frequently matched with task-based learning
9
Brumfit (1979)
Learning to communicate, orCommunicating to learn? . . .
** using content to learn language, or
using language to learn content
10
• CBLT has explicit language learning aim• CBI may not
(heritage from “Language(s) Across the Curriculum” and Immersion)– LAC – every lesson should reinforce language
learning– Immersion / partial immersion – surround learners
with the new language and they will learn (also, “Language Showers”)
11
3. Dissecting “content”
• No agreement on definition
• No agreement on focus of cbi
• No agreement on duration of cbi
12
• No Agreement whether CBI early
13
• Distinguish between Cummins’ (1979)
BICS / CALP– BICS -- Basic Interpersonal Communication
Skills – CALP -- Cognitive Academic Language
Proficiency
14
15
“latitude” in the (lack of) definition
• “CBI” label an “umbrella”
justify going outside established course materials
16
Design Questions
• Cohesion– Science / Biology / “The Environment” /
“The Pond”– Appropriate to learners’ educational
development / other courses of study
• Duration– One class session (or less) – topical– One to three weeks – thematic– Six weeks or more – sustained content
17
18
No agreement on Focus
• Harder and softer varieties (content continuum)– “traditional fields of academic study”
• How does literature or linguistics fit in here? Sports?
– anything other than explicit language instruction• Why not a grammar lesson taught in English?
– a range between these extremes
19
• Using content to teach language, or
• Using language to teach content?
20
• Substitutions for content– “academic skills” as (aim for?) content– “vocational skills”– multi-media/technology as “content”
(TV commercials, movies, the internet)– “language skills” as content (applied
languages) - Translation, Journalism, Debate. Public Speaking… “the four skills” (especially Listening & Reading, topical areas)
21
• Stronger / Weaker Versions
(language continuum)– “Conceptual Mastery of a certain subject”
(McGroarty, 1991) … strong– “content as a vehicle” … weak
• We can chart this (Cartesian) Quadrants
22
23
CBLT
• Using content to learn English (CBLT)– “content-driven” -- content pre-selected
• content determines language points• Course title may indicate “content” selection?
– “language-driven” -- content selected by language instructor (& students?)
• language aims determine content selection?• language aims determine content use?• common source for all content materials?
24
Issues
• Authenticity / Genuineness ??
• Conflict with subject matter courses?
• “Everything is content” (including the Grammar-translation textbook drill sentences”)
• Language Teacher qualification in Subject area?
25
Balance of content & English
• Based on various factors
• Intentionally “grading” the levels of content / language in a series of courses?
• Don’t neglect learner anxiety as a multiplier of all other issues
• A “Gradient Continuum” of classes?
• Content courses just one part of overall language learning program
26
27
Content / Language Mix
• Cognitive Load
28
29
30
– A topical matrix
31
32
• Mix Options
(Here “language as content” (e.g., Literature) or “language as skill” (e.g., Reading, Translation) belongs under “Subject Matter.”Language science here refers merely to the “science” aspects, e.g., grammar, vocabulary, phonetics…)
33
34
Robert J. Dickey
Keimyung University
Daegu
S. Korea 704-701
www.content-english.org
35
Part II
36
Considering Content for
Language-learning Classrooms
Robert J. Dickey
Keimyung, Korea
past president, Korea TESOL
37
II. Planning Content + Language
1. Identifying learning objectives
2. L1 Use
3. Methods (Teaching Tools)
4. Sample Class
5. Framework
38
1. Identifying learning objectives
• Orientations– Teacher’s orientation– Learners’ orientation– Administration, parents, others
39
• Course objectives– Content learning objectives– Language learning objectives– Other learning objectives, e.g., “academic
skills”, test preparation…– EVERY lesson should have both/3 types
40
• EFL vs. ESL approaches (generally)– N. American “CBI” is bifurcated:
• immersion/partial immersion (even French as a foreign language in Canada) has content focus
• “mainstreaming” in USA has more language skills focus – use of “sheltered,” “pullout” and “adjunct” programs (or, it did “pre-GW”)
– European “CLIL” more oriented to “balance” (though not necessarily 50/50)
41
• Instructor’s knowledge-base– Argued by both content specialists and
language specialists– Frequent reason for distinction between
“content-focus” and “language-focus”– A reason for topical vs. sustained content
decisions
42
Contents in the literature
Law/Legal Writing (Hong Kong) Sociology (Korea, Indonesia)cartoons (Korea) Political Science, Sociology
/Adjunct (Japan)Psychology (Japan) (Korea)Pre-Science (Malaysia)Natural Science (Japan)Topics in the History of Science
(Malaysia)Western Civilization (Japan)American History (Japan)Literature (Japan)Linguistics (Japan)
Art History /Adjunct (Japan) History of Western Art (Japan)Film (Hong Kong)cartoons (Korea) Business/Accounting case-study
(Hong Kong)Tourism/Cultural Assets (Korea) Theological Studies (Japan)
(Korea)Conversation (Japan) General English (reading) (Japan) HS Literature (Malaysia)HS Math (Malaysia)HS Science (Malaysia)
43
2. L1 Use
• No assumption of L2-only
• Learners’ familiarity with content may affect L1 use
• Content focus (test aim?) along with time factors may dictate L1 use
44
3. Teaching Methods
• CBI does not dictate teaching techniques– works well with Task-based, as well as with
the more teacher-centered systems– probably all “methods” can and have used a
content-based syllabus at one time or another
• does not dictate medium of instruction:– distance learning– CALL/video/audio/other
45
4. Sample Class
• Language Objective – subjunctive ‘wish’
• Content Objective - Indian English Literature
• Class general aims– “appreciation of literature”– preparation for writing assignment -
social commentary through poetry
46
A Sample Class .2
• The “text”: Tagore’s Crescent Moon – “Vocation”
• Language objectives: “I wish I were…” and descriptive writing
• Content objective: roles in society and creative thinking
47
5. Framework
• Teaching English through content, Teaching content through English ???
• A Framework for constructing a content-enriched (content-enhanced) lesson plan
• from the paper at http://www.content-english.org/data/dickey-ei.pdf
48
A Lesson from N. Luzon
49
1. Identify the specific course and group
of students to teach.
50
2. Identify the content to be utilized.
51
3. Identify why the students should care.
52
4. Identify the specific “teaching point(s).”
53
5. Develop/locate an exemplar text.
54
6. Design student responses to the text.
55
7. Students check their own work, and
that of their peers.
56
8. Students create new stories, new
endings, and tell the stories to groupmates.
57
9. Groupwork.
58
10.Testing (Assessment).
59
1. Identify the specific course and group of students to teach.
2. Identify the content to be utilized.3. Identify why the students should care.4. Identify the specific “teaching point(s).”5. Develop/locate an exemplar text.6. Design student responses to the text.7. Students check their own work, and that of
their peers.8. Students create new stories, new endings,
and tell the stories to groupmates.9. Groupwork.10. Testing (Assessment).
60
61
Robert J. Dickey
Keimyung University
Daegu
S. Korea 704-701
www.content-english.org