Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T04:57:09.737Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

12. CONTENT-BASED INSTRUCTION: PERSPECTIVES ON CURRICULUM PLANNING

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2004

Fredricka L. Stoller
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Content-based instruction (CBI), distinguished by its dual commitment to languageand content-learning objectives, has been translated into practice in diverse ways to meet the needs of second and foreign language student populations. This article explores the general characteristics of and challenges associated with content-based curricula by reviewing (1) case studies that document outcomes of CBI programs at elementary, secondary, and higher education levels and (2) curricular models that have been implemented in first and second language contexts. Included in this review of curricular models, because of its implications for second and foreign language contexts, is a brief explanation of Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI), an approach to content learning and reading development that has been used and extensively researched in first language settings. Empirical studies focusing on CORI, immersion models, and other CBI-related issues (including teacher–student interactions; teachers' oral discourse; and teachers' attention to language, content, and task) are summarized to illustrate the complexities of content-based curricula. The article concludes with a call for further research that can inform the practices of teachers, curriculum and course designers, materials developers, and individuals involved with assessment in content-based settings.

Type
CURRICULUM, PEDAGOGY, AND TEACHER PREPARATION
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 24 , January 2004 , pp. 261 - 283
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Council on Immersion Education (ACIE). The bridge: From research to practice [Newsletter]. Retrieved September, 2003, from http://carla.acad.umn.edu/acie-bridges.html.
Bournot-Trites M., & Reeder K. 2001. Interdependence revisited: Mathematics achievement in an intensified French immersion program. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 58 (1), 27– 43.Google Scholar
Bragger J. D., & Rice D. B. 1999. The message is in medium: A new paradigm for content-oriented instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 32 (3), 373– 391.Google Scholar
Brinton D. M. 2001. A theme-based literature course: Focus on the City of Angels. In J. Murphy & P. Byrd (Eds.), Understanding the courses we teach: Local perspectives on English language teaching (pp. 281– 308). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Brinton D. M., & Jensen L. 2002. Appropriating the adjunct model: English for academic purposes at the university level. In J. A. Crandall & D. Kaufman (Eds.), Content-based instruction in higher education settings (pp. 125– 137). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Brinton D., Snow M. A., & Wesche M. 1989. Content-based second language instruction. New York: Newbury House.
Bueno K. A. 2002. Creating community and making connections in the third-year Spanish course: A content-based approach. Foreign Language Annals, 35 (3), 333– 341.Google Scholar
Bunch G. C., Abram P. L., Lotan R. A., & Valdés G. 2001. Beyond sheltered instruction: Rethinking conditions for academic language development. TESOL Journal, 10 (2/3), 28– 33.Google Scholar
Burger S., & Chrétien M. 2001. The development of oral production in contentbased second language courses at the University of Ottawa. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 58 (1), 84– 102.Google Scholar
Cantoni-Harvey G. 1987. Content-area language instruction: Approaches and strategies. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA), University of Minnesota. Content-based language teaching through technology. Retrieved October, 2003, from http://carla.acad.umn.edu/COBALTT.html.
Carson J. G. 2000. Reading and writing for academic purposes. In M. Pally (Ed.), Sustained content teaching in academic ESL/EFL: A practical approach (pp. 19– 34). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Chamot A. U., & O'Malley J. M. 1987. The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: A Bridge to the Mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 21 (2), 227– 249.Google Scholar
Chamot A. U., & O'Malley J. M. 1994. The CALLA handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.
Christian D. 2001. Dual-language education for English language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 35 (4), 601– 602.Google Scholar
Crandall J. A. (Ed) 1987. ESL through content-area instruction; Mathematics, science, and social studies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Crandall J. A. 1993. Content-centered learning in the United States.. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 111– 126.Google Scholar
Creese A. 2002. The discursive construction of power in teacher partnerships: Language and subject specialists in mainstream schools. TESOL Quarterly, 36 (4), 597– 616.Google Scholar
Davison C., & Williams A. 2001. Integrating language and content: Unresolved issues. In B. Mohan, C. Leung, & C. Davison (Eds.), English as a second language in the mainstream: Teaching learning and identity (pp. 51– 70). New York: Longman.
de Courcy M. 2002. Learners' experiences of immersion education: Case studies of French and Chinese. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Doughty C., & Varela E. 1998. Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in second language classrooms (pp. 114– 138). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Duff P. A. 2001a. Language literacy, content, and (pop) culture: Challenges for ESL students in mainstream courses. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 58 (1), 103– 132.Google Scholar
Duff P. A. 2001b. Learning English for academic and occupational purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 35 (4), 606– 607.Google Scholar
Dupuy B. C. 2000. Content-based instruction: Can it help ease the transition from beginning to advanced foreign language classes? Foreign Language Annals, 33, 205– 223.Google Scholar
Echevarria J., & Graves A. 2003. Sheltered content instruction: Teaching Englishlanguage learners with diverse abilities (2nd ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Enright D. S., & McCloskey M. 1988. Integrating English. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Freeman D. 2001. Teacher learning and student learning in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 35 (4), 608– 609.Google Scholar
Gibbons P. 2003. Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37 (2), 247– 273.Google Scholar
Gilzow D., & Branaman L. E. 2000. Lessons learned: Model early foreign language programs. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and McHenry, IL: Delta Systems.
Gottlieb M. 1999. Assessing ESOL adolescents: Balancing accessibility to learn with accountability for learning. In C. J. Faltis & P. Wolfe (Eds.), So much to say: Adolescents, bilingualism, & ESL in the secondary school (pp. 176– 201). New York: Teachers College Press.
Guthrie J. T., Van Meter P., Hancock G. R., McCann A., Anderson E., & Alao S. 1998. Does Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction increase strategy use and conceptual learning from text? Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 (2), 261– 278.Google Scholar
Guthrie J. T., Cox K. E., Knowles K. T., Buehl M., Mazzoni S., & Fasculo L. 2000. Building toward coherent instruction. In L. Baker, M. J. Dreher, & J.T. Guthrie (Eds.), Engaging young readers: Promoting achievement and motivation (pp. 209– 237). New York: Guilford Press.
Guthrie J. T., Schafer W. D., Von Secker C., & Alban T. 2000. Contributions of integrated reading instruction and text resources to achievement and engagement in a statewide school improvement program.Journal of Educational Research, 93, 211– 226.Google Scholar
Guthrie J. T., Wigfield A., & Von Seker C. 2000. Effects of integrated instruction on motivation and strategy use in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (2), 331– 341.Google Scholar
Hoecherl-Alden G. 2000. Turning professional: Content-based communication and the evolution of a cross-cultural language curriculum. Foreign Language Annals, 33, 614– 621.Google Scholar
Huang J., & Morgan G. 2003. A functional approach to evaluating content knowledge and language development in ESL students' science classification texts. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13 (2), 234– 262.Google Scholar
Iancu M. A. 2002. To motivate and educate, collaborate and integrate: The adjunct model in a bridge program. In J. A. Crandall & D. Kaufman (Eds.), Contentbased instruction in higher education settings (pp. 139– 153). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Janzen J. 2001. Strategic readings on a sustained content theme. In J. Murphy & P. Byrd (Eds.), Understanding the courses we teach: Local perspectives on English language teaching (pp. 369– 389). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Johns A. M. 1997. Text, role, and context: Developing academic literacies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson R. K., & Swain M. (Eds) 1997. Immersion education: International perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kasper L. F. 1997. The impact of content-based instructional programs on the academic progress of ESL students. English for Specific Purposes, 16 (4), 309– 320.Google Scholar
Kasper L. F. (Ed) 2000. Content-based college ESL instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Klee C. A. 2000. Foreign language instruction. In J. W. Rosenthal (Ed.), Handbook of undergraduate second language education (pp. 49– 72). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Klingner J. K., & Vaughn S. 2000. The helping behaviors of fifth graders while using collaborative strategic reading during ESL content classes. TESOL Quarterly, 34 (1), 69– 98.Google Scholar
Krueger M., & Ryan F. (Eds) 1993. Language and content: Discipline- and content-based approach to language study. Lexington, MA: Heath.
Langman J. 2003. The effects of ESL-trained content-area teachers: Reducing middle-school students to incidental language learners. Prospect, 18 (1), 14– 26.Google Scholar
Leung C. 2001. Evaluation of content-language learning in the mainstream classroom. In B. Mohan, C. Leung, & C. Davison (Eds.), English as a second language in the mainstream: Teaching learning and identity (pp. 177– 198). New York: Longman.
Leung C., & Franson C. 2001a. Curriculum identity and professional development: System-wide questions. In B. Mohan, C. Leung, & C. Davison (Eds.), English as a second language in the mainstream: Teaching learning and identity (pp. 199– 214). New York: Longman.
Leung C., & Franson C. 2001b. Mainstreaming: ESL as a diffused curriculum concern. In B. Mohan, C. Leung, & C. Davison (Eds.), English as a second language in the mainstream: Teaching learning and identity (pp. 165– 176). New York: Longman.
Marsh D. (n.d.). Using languages to learn and learning to use languages. Retrieved April 23, 2003, from TIE-CLIL Web site: http://www.tieclil.org/html/products.
Marsh D., & Langé G. (Eds) 1999. Implementing content and language integrated learning: A research driver TIE-CLIL foundation course reader. Jyväskylä, Finland: Continuing Education Centre, University of Jyväskylä.
Mendelsohn D. J. 2001. Canadian language and culture: A course for nine academic credits. In J. Murphy & P. Byrd (Eds.), Understanding the courses we teach: Local perspectives on English language teaching (pp. 309– 326). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Met M. 1998. Curriculum decision-making in content-based language teaching. In J. Cenoz & F. Genesee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education (pp. 35– 63). Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.
Mohan B. 1986. Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Mohan B., & Beckett G. H. 2001. A functional approach to research on contentbased language learning: Recasts in causal explanations. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 58 (1), 133– 155.Google Scholar
Mohan B., Leung C., & Davison C. (Eds) 2001. English as a second language in the mainstream: Teaching learning and identity. New York: Longman.
Murphy J., & Byrd P. (Eds) 2001. Understanding the courses we teach: Local perspectives on English language teaching. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Murphy J., & Stoller F. L. 2001a. Sustained-content language teaching: An emerging definition. TESOL Journal, 10 (2/3), 3– 5.Google Scholar
Murphy J., & Stoller F. L. (Eds) 2001b. TESOL Journal, 10 (2/3) [Special topics issue on sustained content for language teaching].
Opp-Beckman L. 2002. Africa online: A Web- and content-based English language teaching course. TESOL Journal, 11 (3), 4– 8.Google Scholar
Pally M. (Ed) 2000. Sustained content teaching in academic ESL/EFL: A practical approach. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Parkinson J. 2000. Acquiring scientific literacy through content and genre: A theme-based language course for science students. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 369– 387.Google Scholar
Peninsula Technikon. 2001, March). Integrating content and language: Providing access to knowledge through language. Conference proceedings. Retrieved September, 2003, from http://www.pentach.ac.za/pil88/.
Pica T. 2002. Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners? The Modern Language Journal, 81, 1– 19.Google Scholar
Pufahl I., Rhodes N. C., & Christian D. 2000. Foreign language teaching: What the United States can learn from other countries. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Ronesi L. 2001. Training undergraduates to support ESL classmates: The English Language Fellows Program. TESOL Journal, 10 (2/3), 23– 27.Google Scholar
Schleppegrell M., & Achugar M. 2003. Learning language and learning history: A functional linguistics approach. TESOL Journal, 12 (2), 21– 27.Google Scholar
Short D. J. 1994. Expanding middle school horizons: Integrating language, culture, and social studies. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 581– 608.Google Scholar
Short D. J. 1997. Reading and 'riting and … social studies: Research on integrated language and content in second classrooms. In M. A. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 213– 232). New York: Longman.
Short D. J. 1999. Integrating language and content for effective sheltered instruction programs. In C. J. Faltis & P. Wolfe (Eds.), So much to say: Adolescents, bilingualism, & ESL in the secondary school (pp. 105– 137). New York: Teachers College Press.
Short D. J., & Echevarria J. 1999. The sheltered instruction observation protocol: A tool for teacher-research collaboration and professional development. Santa Cruz: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Smallwood B. A., & McCargo C. (Eds) 1999. Integrating language and content in secondary school: Instructional strategies and thematic units for English, mathematics, science, and social studies. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Snow M. A. 1997. Teaching academic literacy skills: Discipline faculty take responsibility. In M. A. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 290– 304). New York: Longman.
Snow M. A. 1998. Trends and issues in content-based instruction.. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 243– 267.Google Scholar
Snow M. A. 2001. Content-based and immersion models for second and foreign language teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 303– 318). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Snow M. A., & Kamhi-Stein L. D. 2002. Teaching and learning academic literacy through Project LEAP. In J. A. Crandall & D. Kaufman (Eds.), Contentbased instruction in higher education settings (pp. 169– 181). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Spanos G. 1990. On the integration of language and content instruction.. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 227– 240.Google Scholar
Stewart T., Sagliano M., & Sagliano J. 2002. Merging expertise: Developing partnerships between language and content specialists. In J. A. Crandall & D. Kaufman (Eds.), Content-based instruction in higher education settings (pp. 29– 44). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Stoller F. L. 2002. Promoting the acquisition of knowledge in a content-based course. In J. A. Crandall & D. Kaufman (Eds.), Content-based instruction in higher education settings (pp. 109– 123). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Stoller F. L., & Grabe W. 1997. A six-Ts approach to content-based instruction. In M. A. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 78– 103). New York: Longman.
Straight H. S. (Ed) 1994. Languages across the Curriculum: Translation perspectives VII. Binghamton, NY: Center for Research in Translation, SUNY at Binghamton.
Stryker S. B., & Leaver B. L. (Eds) 1997. Content-based instruction in foreign language education: Models and methods. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Swain M. 1998. Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in second language classrooms (pp. 64– 81). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Swain M. 2001. Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 58 (1), 44– 63.Google Scholar
Thomas W. P., & Collier V. P. 2002. A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students' long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence, University of California.
Turnbull M., Lapkin M., & Hart D. 2001. Grade 3 immersion students' performances in literacy and mathematics: Province-wide results from Ontario (1998–99). The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 58 (1), 9– 26.Google Scholar
University of Maastricht, Netherlands. 2003 fall). Integrating content and language: Meeting the challenge of a multilingual higher education. Conference program. Retrieved October, 2003, from http://www.unimaas.nl/icl/index.htm.
Weissberg R., & Lipoufski M. 2002. Borders and barriers: A model for a localissues ESL course. TESOL Journal, 11 (2), 12– 18.Google Scholar
Wesche M. B. 2000. A Canadian perspective: Second language teaching and learning in the university. In J. W. Rosenthal (Ed.), Handbook of undergraduate second language education (pp. 187– 208). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wesche M. B., & Skehan P. 2002. Communicative, task-based, and content-based language instruction. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 207– 228). New York: Oxford University Press.