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

rjdickey@content-english.org

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

rjdickey@content-english.org

www.content-english.org