Content-based instruction

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Content-based instruction

Tekliuk H.P.

Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences

Assistant Professor at the Department of English Philology

Vinnytsia Mykhailo Kotsiubynskyi State Pedagogical University

Vinnytsia, Ukraine

Annotation

In recent years content-based instruction has become increasingly wide-spread as a means of developing linguistic competence. It has strong connections to project work, task-based learning and a holistic approach to language instruction and has become particularly popular within the state school secondary (11-16 years old) education sector. The focus of a CBI lesson is on the topic or subject matter. During the lesson students are consentrated on learning about something. This could be anything that interests them from a serious science subject to their favourite film star or even a topical news story or song. They learn about this subject using the language they are trying to learn, rather than their native one, as a tool for gaining knowledge and so they develop their linguistic ability in the target language. This is thought to be a more natural way of developing language competence and one that corresponds more to the way we originally learn our first language. CBI can make learning a language more engaging and motivating. Students can use the language to gain a real goal, which can make students more independent and confident. Students can also develop a much wider knowledge of the world through CBI which can influence 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, summarising and extracting key information from texts. Taking information from different sources, re-evaluating and restructuring that information can help students to develop very valuable thinking skills that can then be transferred to other subjects. The inclusion of group work can also help students to develop their collaborative skills, which can have great social value. As CBI isn't explicitly focused on language learning, some students may feel confused or may even feel that they are not improving their language skills. We should 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. It is considered that learning content and language together keeps students interested and motivated. They understand the relevance of what they are studying and that language is a means of learning.Key words: ESL teaching method, interesting subject matter, achieving real goals, motivation, interest.

Навчання через зміст

Теклюк Г.П.

кандидат педагогічних наук, старший викладач кафедри англійської філології Вінницький державний педагогічний університет імені Михайла Коцюбинського Вінниця, Україна

Анотація

language skill lesson

Останнім часом навчання на основі змісту як засіб розвитку мовних здібностей стає все більш популярним. Воно має тісні зв'язки з проектною роботою, навчанням на основі завдань і цілісним підходом до викладання мови й стало особливо популярним у секторі середньої освіти державних шкіл (11-16 років). Навчання через зміст робить головний наголос на темі уроку. Під час заняття учні зосереджені на тому, щоб про щось дізнатися. Це може бути будь-що, що їх цікавить, від серйозної наукової теми до інформації про улюблену кінозірку або навіть останні новини чи пісня. Вони дізнаються про цю тему, використовуючи іноземну мову, а не рідну як інструмент для розвитку знань, і так вони розвивають свої знання з іноземної мови. Уважається, що це більш природний спосіб розвитку мовних здібностей, який схожий на те, як ми спочатку вивчаємо свою першу мову.

У статті зазначається, що навчання через зміст може зробити вивчення мови більш захопливим і мотивуючим. Учні використовують мову для досягнення реальної мети, що робить їх більш незалежними та впевненими в собі. Студенти також можуть розвивати набагато ширші знання про світ за допомогою навчання через зміст, що сприяє вдосконаленню й задоволенню загальних освітніх потреб. Цей метод також дуже популярний серед викладачів EAP (англійська мова для академічних цілей), оскільки допомагає студентам розвивати важливі навчальні навички, такі як ведення нотаток, узагальнення та виділення ключової інформації з текстів.

Також досліджено, що інформація з різних джерел, оцінка та реструктуризація цієї інформації допомагають студентам сформувати дуже цінні навички мислення, які потім можуть бути застосовані під час вивчення інших предметів. Використання групової роботи дає студентам змогу розвинути свої навички спільної роботи, які можуть мати велику соціальну цінність.

Зазначено, що, оскільки навчання через зміст явно не зосереджується на вивченні мови, деякі студенти можуть відчувати розгубленість або навіть думати, що вони не вдосконалюють свої мовні навички. У такому разі варто дати учням певні види мовно-орієнтованих вправ, які допоможуть привернути увагу до мовних явищ і закріпити складну лексику чи граматичні моменти.

Підсумовано, що увага до змісту навчання під час вивчення мови викликає зацікавленість в учнів і мотивує їх. Вони розуміють актуальність того, що вони вивчають, і що мова є засобом навчання.

Ключові слова: метод викладання англійської мови як іноземної, цікава тема, досягнення реальних цілей, мотивація, інтерес.

Problem setting

In recent years content-based instruction is becoming more and more popular as a means of developing linguistic ability. It puts emphasis not on learning the language itself but on the information or content which is being taught and develops students' interest and motivation to foreign language learning. Lots of authors researched CBI, e.g. A.P. Howatt, M. Met, M. Schleppegrell, A. Sherris and others. The CBI theory needs summarizing and drawing some conclusions, though.

The aim of the article is to analyze the CBI theory, make some points about it clearer and summarize the main ideas.

There are two versions of the Communicative Approach: a strong version and a weak version. The weak version acknowledges the importance of providing learners with favorable circumstances to practice English for communicative purposes [4, p. 25]. For instance, in the CLT lesson students are provided with a lot of practice in learning the forms for a particular function, i.e. inviting. The strong version of the Communicative Approach goes beyond giving students opportunities to practice communication. The strong version asserts that language is acquired through communication. The weak version could be described as `learning to use' English; the strong one entails `using English to learn it' [4, p. 279]. Content-based instruction and task-based and participatory approaches, belong in the strong version category. While the three may seem dissimilar, what they have in common is that they prioritize communicating, over predetermined linguistic content, and teach through communication rather than for it.

There are some doubts about the inclusion of content-based, task-based, and participatory approaches in a methods book, for they might be called `syllabus types'. Nevertheless, from the other hand, `method' designation is very appropriate. Snow, for instance, characterizes content-based instruction as a `method with many faces' - both to make the case for content-based instruction as a method of language teaching and to enumerate the great variety of forms and settings in which it takes place [12]. In addition, Kumaravadivelu notes that the term `task' is often used with reference to both content and methodology of language teaching [5]. Indeed, within the strong version of a communicative approach, the traditional separation of syllabus design and methodology is not so obvious. If students learn to communicate by communicating [1], then the goal and the means become one and the same [9].

There is also a question whether the three are different enough to be treated separately. For example, Skehan notes that one could regard much content-based instruction (as well as project work, which we will briefly discuss in the next chapter) as particular examples of a task-based approach [11]. And others consider that task-based and participatory approaches are a form of content-based instruction. In any case, although it should be taken into consideration that these methods are unified by the assumption that students learn to communicate by communicating, their scope and their particular foci guarantee independent treatment.

Using content from other disciplines in language courses is not a new idea. For years, specialized language courses have taught content connected to a certain profession or academic discipline. So, for example, the content of a language course for doctors is different from one for hairdressers. This is usually called teaching a language for specific purposes. In an academic setting, it might be named teaching language for academic purposes. Other examples of language programs that use specific content are programs that teach a foreign language for lawyers and business people. Thus adult learners learn at their workplace to read and write about content that relates to what they need in their work environment. In competency-based instruction, adults learn language skills by studying vital `life-coping' or `survival' skills, such as ordering food in a restaurant or using the internet.

One of the advantges of content-based instruction is that it is not only a language program, but it combines the learning of language with the learning of some other content. The content can be themes, i. e. some topics such as popular TV programmes or shows in which students are interested. Often, the content is academic subject matter [2]. It is quite obvious that academic subjects provide natural content for language study. Such observations motivated the `language across the curriculum' movement for native English speakers in England, which was organized in the 1970s to include the teaching of reading and writing into all other subjects. In Canada, second language immersion programs, in which Anglophone children learn their academic subjects in French, have been known for many years. In the United States, CBI instruction was begun to help English language learners in public schools. When English language learners (ELLs) were put in regular school classes with native speakers of English, some ELLs did not master either information or English. On the other hand, when these students studied English first, their study of academic subjects was delayed. In order to prevent both problems, instructors teach academic subjects, such as maths or science, while also teaching the language that is connected to that information. Language therefore becomes the means for learning content [8, p. 78].

In the European context, the same instructional approach is called content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Marsh gives a definition of CLIL as:

... any dual-focused educational context in which an additional language, thus not usually the first language of the learners involved, is used as a medium in the teaching and learning of non-language content [7].

`This approach can be viewed as being neither language learning, nor subject learning, but rather an amalgam of both' [7, p. 233]. In recent years, a number of countries (Estonia, Finland, Latvia, the Netherlands, and Spain) have used a widespread CLIL approach to language and content teaching.

Since CBI and CLIL are developing rapidly, it would be useful to warn about some moments. The teaching of language to younger and younger learners has taken place around the world, because governments are not satisfied with what is achieved in language study, or because the young learners' parents want their children to have the opportunities in life that knowledge of a foreign language can give. But it might be important for children to establish literacy in their native language before learning to read and write another language, although the contrary variant might be also good. Second, it is important to develop a program that meets their needs [3]. It is not simply the case that the earlier the better when we speak about language learning.

Of course, when students study academic subjects in a foreign language, they will need a lot of help in understanding subject matter texts and in learning to use the academic language related to the subject. Therefore, teachers should have clear language objectives as well as content learning objectives for their classes.

CBI teachers must also set language objectives connected with vocabulary, structure, and discourse organization.

Some other basic points about CBI are that both the content and the language are targets for learning, teaching should be built on students' previous knowledge and experience and the teacher elicits the missing lexis when the students have problems in explaining a concept in the target language. The teacher helps learners say what it is they want to say by building a complete phrase or sentence together with the students.

Therefore, when learners understand the relevant purpose of their language use, they are motivated and engaged to learn. Language is learned most effectively when it is used as a means to convey interesting information to the students. Vocabulary is easier to acquire when there are some clues in context to help convey meaning. It is important to develop all the skills, as well as vocabulary and grammar in an authentic context. But when they work with authentic subject matter, students need some language help. For instance, the teacher may provide a number of examples, build in some repetition, use comprehension questions, etc.

Moreover, learners work with meaningful, cognitively demanding language and content within the context of authentic material and tasks. The teachers use a dictogloss because it is important for students to learn the discourse organization of academic texts.

For homework, the students are sometimes given a graphic organizer, as it helps students develop the skills that they need to learn academic content.

Language is meaningful and a medium through which content is conveyed. Culture is addressed in teaching to the extent that it is present in the content area being studied.

Students are evaluated on their knowledge of content and their language ability. The teacher corrects student errors by giving students the correct form or allowing students to self-correct. She writes the errors down, and checks content for the students to learn to use language they will need in a school context [6, p. 179].

Teachers need to have content and language knowledge and teaching skills. Teacher preparation can also help teachers to understand the rationale for integrated instruction and give them practice designing lessons with language and content objectives, and interesting, stimulating content material. One well-known resource is the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP), which helps teachers by describing effective practices [10]. Sheltered-language instruction supports students through the use of particular instructional techniques and materials such as specialized vocabulary-building activities, graphic organizers, and cloze activities.

Sometimes, team teaching is used, with one teacher in the class working with content and another with language support. At the university level, sometimes an adjunct model is used. In the adjunct model for university students, students enroll in a regular academic course. In addition, they take a language course that is linked to the academic course. During the language class, the language teacher's focus is on helping students process the language in order to understand the academic content presented by the content teacher. The language teacher also helps students to complete academic tasks such as writing term papers, improving their note-taking skills, and reading academic textbooks advised by the content teacher [6, p. 180].

Particularly in monolingual classes, the overuse of the students' native language during parts of the lesson can be a problem. Because the lesson isn't explicitly focused on language practice students find it much easier and quicker to use their mother tongue. Teachers should try to share their 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 texts 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 students' native language and then get them to use the target language for the sharing of information and end product, or to have texts in the target language, but allow the students to present the end product in their native language. These ways should lower the level of challenge.

Some students may copy directly from the source texts they use to get their information. We can 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 contrasting information can also be helpful as students have to decide which information they support or disagree.

While CBI can be both challenging and difficult for the teacher and the students, it can also be very inspiring and beneficial. The degree to which teachers adopt this approach may well depend on the willingness of students, the institution in which teachers work and the availability of resources which are needed.

Lastly, teachers should involve their students and get them to help decide what topics and subjects the lessons are organised and find out what the difference between this kind of lessons and usual lessons is. In the end they will be the measure of language learning and teaching success.

Conclusions

So, in a CBI class, teachers want the students to master both language and content. The content can be themes of general interest to students, such as current sport events or their summer holidays, or it can be an academic subject. Teachers do not want to delay students' academic study or language study, so teachers encourage the development of both at the same time.

The teacher needs to set clear learning objectives for both content and language and then creates activities to teach both, scaffolding the language needed for study of the content. The students' role is to engage actively with both content and language, using each to learn the other.

Teachers must also help learners understand authentic texts. Teachers make meaning clear through the use of visual aid, objects and material from everyday life, repeating, and by giving a lot of examples, built on students' previous experiences. Teachers also design activities that address both language and content, and the discourse organization of the content, with specific language activities highlighting how language is used in a particular subject-the language of mathematics differs from the language for history for example.

Students are actively involved in learning language and content, often through group or pairwork with other students. Thinking skills are also taught in order to help students cope with academic tasks. Graphic organizers are one of the tools used to help this process.

In addition, the teacher guides student learning. She supports them by having students pay attention to how language is used to deliver content and by encouraging their language development. Students often work together to understand content while actively using the language they are studying.

It is considered that learning content and language together keeps students interested and motivated. They understand the relevance of what they are studying and that language is a means of learning.

References

1. Breen M. Process syllabuses for the language classroom. C. Brumfit, (ed.). General English Syllabus Design - Curriculum and Syllabus Design for the General English Classroom (EFL Documents 118). Oxford : Pergamon Press for the British Council, 1984.

2. Brinton D., Snow А., M. Wesche. Content-based Second Language Instruction. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle, 1989.

3. Cameron L. Challenges for ELT from the expansion in teaching children. ELT Journal. 2003. № 57/2. Р 105-12.

4. Howatt A.P.R. A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1984.

5. Kumaravadivelu B. The name of the task and the task of naming: Methodological aspects of task-based pedagogy. G. Crookes and S. Gass (eds.). Tasks in a Pedagogical Context. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd, 1993.

6. Larsen-Freeman D., Anderson M. Techniques & Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford University Press, 2011.

7. Marsh D. (ed.). CLIL/EMILE European Dimension: Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential. European Commission, Public Services Contract DG 3406/001-001, 2002.

8. Mohan B. Language and Content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1986.

9. Nunan D. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1989.

10. Short D., Echevarria J. The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol: A Tool for Teacher-Researcher Collaboration and Professional Development. Educational Practice Report, Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence, 1999.

11. Skehan P. Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics : Foundations of Second Language Teaching, 1998. Volume 18.

12. Snow M. (1991). Content-based instruction: A method with many faces. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1991: Linguistics and Language Pedagogy / J. Alatis (ed.). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press 1991. Р. 461-470.

Размещено на Allbest.ru