theories under cbi

7/17/2019 Theories Under CBI

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theories-under-cbi 1/6

Origins and Definitions

• Although it is most often associated with the genesis of language immersion education in

Canada in 1965, content-based instruction is hardly a new phenomenon. We now that!until the rise of nationalism, few languages other than those of the great empires,religions, and ci"ili#ations were considered competent or worthy to carry the content of a

formal curriculum! $%wain & 'ohnson, 199(, p. 1).

• C*+ is !...the integration of particular content with language teaching aims...the concurrent

teaching of academic subect matter and second language sills! $*rinton et al., 199, p.

).

• C*+ approaches !..."iew the target language largely as the "ehicle through which subect

matter content is learned rather than as the immediate obect of study! $*rinton et al.,

199, p. 5).

• C*+ is aimed at /the de"elopment of use-oriented second and foreign language sills/ andis /distinguished by the concurrent learning of a specific content and related language usesills/ $Wesche, 1990).

• C*+ is !...an approach to language instruction that integrates the presentation of topics or

tass from subect matter classes $e.g., math, social studies) within the contet of teaching

a second or foreign language! $Crandall & 2ucer, 1993, p. 1().

What qualifies as 'content' in CBI?

• Curtain and 4esola $199) limit the definition of C*+ to those !...curriculum concepts being

taught through the foreign language ... appropriate to the grade le"el of the students...! $p.05).

• enesee $199) suggests that content /...need not be academic7 it can include any topic,

theme, or non-language issue of interest or importance to the learners/ $p. 0).

• 8et $1991) proposes that !... /content/ in content-based programs represents material that

is cogniti"ely engaging and demanding for the learner, and is material that etends beyond

the target language or target culture! $p. 153).

• !...what we teach in any ind of content-based course is not the content itself but some

form of the discourse of that contentnot, for eample, /literature/ itself $which can only be

eperienced) but how to analy#e literature...for e"ery body of content that we recogni#e as

suchlie the physical world or human cultural beha"iorthere is a discourse communitylie physics or anthropologywhich pro"ides us with the means to analy#e, tal about,

and write about that content...2hus, for teachers the problem is how to acculturate

students to the rele"ant discourse communities, and for students the problem is how to

become acculturated to those communities! $:sey, 199(, pp. 109-13).

• !...it is not so much the content itself, in terms of factual nowledge, but some form of the

discourse of that content as it is constructed in the erman-speaing world that is being

taught...that means that it is critical that we eplicitly teach on the basis of the

assumptions, con"entions, and procedures of their own ;1 discourse communities $usually

<.%.American and :nglish language) and toward the assumptions, con"entions, and

procedures of the ;=erman language discourse communities! $eorgetown erman

>ept. website).



Content-Based Second Language

Instruction: Rationale

Grabe & Stoller (1997) provide a detailed analysis of research to support content-based second

language instruction. The ey points of their analysis are su!!ari"ed belo# in the categories theyused to organi"e the findings. $dditional research not cited in Grabe & Stoller is also included.

Support fro SL! research:

• ?atural language ac@uisition occurs in contet7 natural language is ne"er learned di"orced

from meaning, and content-based instruction pro"ides a contet for meaningful

communication to occur $Curtain, 19957 8et, 1991)7 second language ac@uisition

increases with content-based language instruction, because students learn language bestwhen there is an emphasis on rele"ant, meaningful content rather than on the language

itself7 !4eople do not learn languages and then use them, but learn languages by using

the!! $<> website) see eorgetown statsB7 howe"er, both form and meaning are

important and are not readily separable in language learning $e.g., ;ightbown & %pada,

19907 8et, 19917 Wells, 199).

• C*+ promotes negotiation of meaning, which is nown to enhance language ac@uisition

$students should negotiate both form and content) $;ightbown & %pada, 1990).

• %econd language ac@uisition is enhanced by comprehensible input $rashen, 197

195), which is a ey pedagogical techni@ue in content-based instruction7 howe"er,

comprehensible input alone does not sufficestudents need form-focused content

instruction $an eplicit focus on rele"ant and contetually appropriate language forms tosupport content learning) $;yster, 19(7 8et, 19917 %wain, 195).

• Cummins/ $191) notion of Cogniti"e Academic ;anguage 4roficiency $CA;4) as

contrasted with *asic +nterpersonal Communication %ills $*+C%) shows that students

need to be learning content while they are de"eloping CA;47 there is not enough time to

separate language and content learning7 postponing content instruction while students

de"elop more ad"anced $academic) language is not only impractical, but it also ignoresstudents/ needs, interests, and cogniti"e le"els $consider se"ere time constraints on

language study prescribed by <.%. higher education, *yrnes, 333).

• C*+ pro"ides opportunities for Dygotsian-based concepts thought to contribute to second

language ac@uisitionnegotiation in the Eone of 4roimal >e"elopment, the use of

!pri"ate speech! $internally directed speech for problem-sol"ing and rehearsal), andstudent appropriation of learning tass $e.g., ;antolf, 1997 ;antolf & Appel, 199).

• ;anguage learning becomes more concrete rather than abstract $as in traditional language

instruction where the focus is on the language itself) $enesee, 199).

• 2he integration of language and content in instruction respects the specificity of functional

language use $it recogni#es that meaning changes depending upon contet) $enesee,

199).

• 8ore sophisticated, comple language is best taught within a framewor that focuses on

comple and authentic content.



Research on Instructional Strategies that Support CBI and SL!

• C*+ lends itself to cooperati"e learning, which has been shown to result in impro"ed

learning $%la"in, 19957 Crandall, 1990).

• C*+ approaches, which promote the importance of learning strategies, pro"ide the

curricular resources for de"elopment of the strategic language and content learner

$F/8alley & Chamot, 1993).

• C*+ lends itself to the incorporation of a "ariety of thining sills, and learning strategies

which lead to rich language de"elopment, e.g., information gathering sillsabsorbing,

@uestioning7 organi#ing sillscategori#ing, comparing, representing7 analy#ing sillsidentifying main ideas, identifying attributes and components, identifying relationships,

patterns7 generating sillsinferring, predicting, estimating $A%C>, %i!ensions of

Thining ) $Curtain, 19957 8et, 1991).

• Gesearch on etensi"e reading in a second language shows that reading coherentetended materials leads to impro"ed language abil ities, greater content-area learning,and higher moti"ation $:lley, 1991)7 the eorgetown erman program has based the

curriculum on tets and genre and report eciting results in students/ speaing and writing

proficiency $seeprogram e"aluation).

Support for CBI fro "ducational and Cogniti#e $s%cholog%

• Anderson $19937 1990) has proposed a cogniti"e learning theory for instruction that

integrates attention to content and language. +n this theory sills $including language) andnowledge follow a general se@uence of states of learning from the cognitive

stage $students notice and attend to information in woring memory7 they engage in

sol"ing basic problems with the language and concepts they/re ac@uiring) to the

associative stage $errors are corrected and connections to related nowledge are

strengthened7 nowledge and sills become procedurali#ed) to the autono!ous

stage $performance becomes automatic, re@uiring little attentional effort7 in this stage

cogniti"e resources are feed up for the net cycle of problem sol"ing, concept learning).

• 2he presentation of coherent and meaningful information leads to deeper processing,

which results in better learning $Anderson, 1993) and information that is more elaborated

is learned and recalled better.

•

+nformation that has a greater number of connections to related information promotesbetter learning $it is more liely that content will ha"e a greater number of connections toother information) $Anderson, 1993).

• Hacts and sills taught in isolation need much more practice and rehearsal before they can

be internali#ed or put into long term memory7 coherently presented information

$thematically organi#ed) is easier to remember and leads to impro"ed learning $%inger,

1993)7 information that has a greater number of connections to related informationenhances learning, and content acts as the dri"ing force for the connections to be made.

• Content-based instruction de"elops a wider range of discourse sills than does traditional

language instruction $because of the incorporation of higher cogniti"e sills)7 *yrnes

$333) notes the increasing demands for high le"els of literacy in languages other than

:nglish.

http://www1.georgetown.edu/departments/german/programs/undergraduate/curriculum/assessment/37092.html

http://www1.georgetown.edu/departments/german/programs/undergraduate/curriculum/assessment/37092.html



• When planned thoughtfully, content-based acti"ities ha"e the possibility of leading to !flow

eperiences,! i.e., optimal eperiences the emerge when personal sills are matched by

high challenge $Csis#entmihalyi, 199(, in rabe & %toller, 199( and %toller, 33) - see

graphic .

• Content-based instruction pro"ides for cogniti"e engagement7 tass that are

intrinsically interesting and cogniti"ely

engaging will lead to more and better

opportunities for second language ac@uisition7

this is particularly important when oneconsiders the inherent compleity of adult

learning $*yrnes, 333).

• Content-based instruction emphasi#es a

connection to real life, real world sills $Curtain, 1995)7 in content-based classes, students

ha"e more opportunities to use the content nowledge and epertise they bring to class

$they acti"ate their prior nowledge, which leads to increased learning of language and

content material).

$rogra Outcoes that Support CBI

• Gesearch conducted in a "ariety of program models $see rabe and %toller, 199( for

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

learning, increased moti"ation and interest le"els, and greater opportunities foremployment $where language abilities are necessary)the research has emerged in :%;

-1 contets , H; -1 $immersion and bilingual programs), post-secondary H; and :%;

contets, and H;AC programs.

• C*+ allows for greater fleibility to be built into the curriculum and acti"ities7 there are more

opportunities to adust to the needs and interests of students.

• 2he integration of language and content throughout a se@uence of language le"els has

the potential to address the challenge of gaps between basic language study "s.

ad"anced literature and cultural studies that often eist in uni"ersity language

departments.

Sources:

1995 "ideo entitled 'elena urtain *ntegrating +anguage and ontent *nstruction,! a"ailable

through the ?H;GC %econd ;anguage 2eaching and Curriculum Center at the <ni"ersity of

Iawai/i at 8anoa.

Anderson, '. G. $1993). ognitive psychology and its i!plications $0rd ed.). ?JK W. I. Hreeman.

Anderson, '. G. $1990). roble! solving and learning. $!erican sychologist, / , 05-.



*rinton, >., %now, 8. A., & Wesche, 8. *. $199). ontent-based second language

instruction. *ostonK Ieinle & Ieinle 4ublishers.

*yrnes, I. $333). ;anguages across the curriculuminterdepartmental curriculum construction. +n

8-G. echt & . "on Iammerstein $:ds.), +anguages across the curriculu! *nterdisciplinary

structures and internationali"ed education. ?ational :ast Asian ;anguages Gesource Center.Columbus, FIK 2he Fhio %tate <ni"ersity.

Crandall, '. $1990). Content-centered learning in the <nited %tates. +n W. rabe, C. Herguson, G. *.

aplan, . G. 2ucer, & I. . Widdowson $:ds.), $nnual 0evie# of $pplied +inguistics, 1.*ssues in second language teaching and learning $pp. 111-16). ?JK Cambridge <ni"ersity

4ress.

Crandall, '., & 2ucer, . G. $1993). Content-based instruction in second and foreign languages. +n

A. 4adilla, I. I. Hairchild, & C. Dalade# $:ds.), 2oreign language education *ssues and

strategies. ?ewbury 4ar, CAK %age.

Curtain, I. A., & 4esola, C. A. $199). +anguages and children 3aing the !atch $nd ed.). ?JK

;ongman.

Csis#entmihalyi, 8. $199(). 2inding flo# The psychology of engage!ent #ith everyday life. ?ew

JorK Iarper Collins.

Cummins, '. $191). 2he role of primary language de"elopment in promoting educational success

for language minority students. +nSchooling and language !inority students $ theoreticalfra!e#or $pp. 0-9). ;os AngelesK California %tate <ni"ersity, :"aluation, >issemination,

and Assessment Center.

:lley, W. $1991). Ac@uiring literacy in a second languageK 2he effect of boo-based

programs. +anguage +earning, 1, 0(5-11.

:sey, >. :. $199(). %yllabus design in content-based instruction. +n 8. A. %now & >. A. *rinton

$:ds.), The content-based classroo! erspectives on integrating language and content $pp.

10-11). White 4lains, ?JK ;ongman.

enesee, H. $199). *ntegrating language and content +essons fro! i!!ersion. :ducational

4ractice Geport 11. ?ational Center for Gesearch on Cultural >i"ersity and %econd ;anguage

;earning.

rabe, W., & %toller, H. ;. $199(). Content-based instructionK Gesearch foundations. +n 8. A. %now,

& >. 8. *rinton $:ds.), The content-based classroo! erspectives on integrating language

and content $pp. 5-1). ?JK ;ongman.

rashen, %. $19). rinciples and practices in second language ac4uisition. ?JK 4ergamon 4ress.

rashen, %. $195). The input hypothesis *ssues and i!plications. ?JK ;ongman.

;antolf, '. $199). $:d.) Sociocultural theory and second language learning. %pecial issue of The

3odern +anguage 5ournal, 7/ $).B

;antolf, '. & Appel, . $:ds.) 6ygotsian approaches to second language research. ?orwood, ?'K

Able.

;ightbown, 4. 8. & %pada, ?. $1990). 'o# languages are learned. ?JK Fford <ni"ersity 4ress.

;yster, G. $19(). %peaing immersion. The anadian 3odern +anguage 0evie#, $), (31-(1(.



8et, 8. $1991). ;earning language through contentK ;earning content through language. 2oreign

+anguage $nnals, $), 1-95.

8et. 8. $1999, 'anuary). ontent-based instruction %efining ter!s, !aing decisions. ?H;C

Geports. Washington, >CK 2he ?ational Horeign ;anguage Center.

F/8alley, '. 8., & Chamot, A. <. $1993). +earning strategies in second language ac4uisition. ?JK

Cambridge <ni"ersity 4ress.

%inger, 8. $1993). sychology of language $n introduction to sentence and discourse

processing. Iillsdale, ?'K :rlbaum.

%la"in, G. :. $1995). ooperative learning $nd ed.). *ostonK Allyn and *acon.

%toller, H. $33, 8arch). ontent-8ased *nstruction $ Shell for +anguage Teaching or a

2ra!e#or for Strategic +anguage and ontent +earning eynote presented at the annualmeeting of 2eachers of :nglish to %peaers of Fther ;anguages, %alt ;ae City. $full

transcript a"ailable at the Co*a;22 website).

%wain, 8. $195). Communicati"e competenceK %ome roles of comprehensible input and

comprehensible output in its de"elopment. +n %. ass & C. 8adden $:ds.), *nput in second

language ac4uisition $pp. 05-50). Gowley, 8AK ?ewbury Iouse.

%wain, 8. & 'ohnson, G.. $199(). +mmersion educationK A category within bilingual education. +n

G. . 'ohnson & 8. %wain $:ds.)*!!ersion :ducation *nternational erspectives $pp. 1-16).

?JK Cambridge <ni"ersity 4ress.

Wells, . $199). 2he complementary contributions of Ialliday and Dygotsy to a !language-basedtheory of learning.! +inguistics and :ducation, ;, 1-93.

Wesche, 8. *. $1990). >iscipline-based approaches to language studyK Gesearch issues andoutcomes. +n 8. rueger & H. Gyan $:ds.) +anguage and content %iscipline- and content-

based approaches to language study. ;eington, 8AK >.C. Ieath.

L 315 Gegents of the <ni"ersity of 8innesota. All rights reser"ed.

2he <ni"ersity of 8innesota is an e@ual opportunity educator and employer

;ast 8odifiedK 8arch 5, 31 at 15K3

http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/modules/strategies/Stoller2002/READING1/stoller2002.htm





theories under cbi

Documents