Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/cbi.html
Search Instructional Modules CoBaLTT Home CBI Units CBI Unit Template Bibliographies
The What and Why of CBI Instructional Modules Lesson Plans & Units CBI Unit Template CoBaLTT Bibliographies CoBaLTT Project Information
1 sur 7
11.3.2008 9:33
http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/cbi.html
physical world or human cultural behaviorthere is a discourse communitylike physics or anthropologywhich provides us with the means to analyze, talk about, and write about that content...Thus, for teachers the problem is how to acculturate students to the relevant discourse communities, and for students the problem is how to become acculturated to those communities" (Eskey, 1997, pp. 139-140). "...it is not so much the content itself, in terms of factual knowledge, but some form of the discourse of that content as it is constructed in the German-speaking world that is being taught...that means that it is critical that we explicitly teach on the basis of the assumptions, conventions, and procedures of their own L1 discourse communities (usually U.S.American and English language) and toward the assumptions, conventions, and procedures of the L2=German language discourse communities" (Georgetown German Dept. website).
2 sur 7
11.3.2008 9:33
http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/cbi.html
CBI provides opportunities for Vygotskian-based concepts thought to contribute to second language acquisitionnegotiation in the Zone of Proximal Development, the use of "private speech" (internally directed speech for problem-solving and rehearsal), and student appropriation of learning tasks (e.g., Lantolf, 1994; Lantolf & Appel, 1994). Language learning becomes more concrete rather than abstract (as in traditional language instruction where the focus is on the language itself) (Genesee, 1994). The integration of language and content in instruction respects the specificity of functional language use (it recognizes that meaning changes depending upon context) (Genesee, 1994). More sophisticated, complex language is best taught within a framework that focuses on complex and authentic content.
3 sur 7
11.3.2008 9:33
http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/cbi.html
resources are feed up for the next cycle of problem solving, concept learning). The presentation of coherent and meaningful information leads to deeper processing, which results in better learning (Anderson, 1990) and information that is more elaborated is learned and recalled better. Information that has a greater number of connections to related information promotes better learning (it is more likely that content will have a greater number of connections to other information) (Anderson, 1990). Facts and skills taught in isolation need much more practice and rehearsal before they can be internalized or put into long term memory; coherently presented information (thematically organized) is easier to remember and leads to improved learning (Singer, 1990); information that has a greater number of connections to related information enhances learning, and content acts as the driving force for the connections to be made. Content-based instruction develops a wider range of discourse skills than does traditional language instruction (because of the incorporation of higher cognitive skills); Byrnes (2000) notes the increasing demands for high levels of literacy in languages other than English. When planned thoughtfully, content-based activities have the possibility of leading to "flow experiences," i.e., optimal experiences the emerge when personal skills are matched by high challenge (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, in Grabe & Stoller, 1997 and Stoller, 2002) - see graphic. Content-based instruction provides for cognitive engagement; tasks that are intrinsically interesting and cognitively engaging will lead to more and better opportunities for second language acquisition; this is particularly important when one considers the inherent complexity of adult learning (Byrnes, 2000). Content-based instruction emphasizes a connection to real life, real world skills (Curtain, 1995); in content-based classes, students have more opportunities to use the content knowledge and expertise they bring to class (they activate their prior knowledge, which leads to increased learning of language and content material).
4 sur 7
11.3.2008 9:33
http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/cbi.html
and activities; there are more opportunities to adjust to the needs and interests of students. The integration of language and content throughout a sequence of language levels has the potential to address the challenge of gaps between basic language study vs. advanced literature and cultural studies that often exist in university language departments.
Sources:
1995 video entitled "Helena Curtain: Integrating Language and Content Instruction," available through the NFLRC Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa. Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications (3rd ed.). NY: W. H. Freeman. Anderson, J. R. (1993). Problem solving and learning. American Psychologist, 48, 35-44. Brinton, D., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-based second language instruction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Byrnes, H. (2000). Languages across the curriculuminterdepartmental curriculum construction. In M-R. Kecht & K. von Hammerstein (Eds.), Languages across the curriculum: Interdisciplinary structures and internationalized education. National East Asian Languages Resource Center. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. Crandall, J. (1993). Content-centered learning in the United States. In W. Grabe, C. Ferguson, R. B. Kaplan, G. R. Tucker, & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13. Issues in second language teaching and learning (pp. 111-126). NY: Cambridge University Press. Crandall, J., & Tucker, G. R. (1990). Content-based instruction in second and foreign languages. In A. Padilla, H. H. Fairchild, & C. Valadez (Eds.), Foreign language education: Issues and strategies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Curtain, H. A., & Pesola, C. A. (1994). Languages and children: Making the match (2nd ed.). NY: Longman. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: Harper Collins. Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3-49). Los Angeles: California State University, Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center. Elley, W. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-based programs. Language Learning, 41, 375-411. Eskey, D. E. (1997). Syllabus design in content-based instruction. In M. A. Snow & D. A. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 132-141). White Plains, NY: Longman. Genesee, F. (1994). Integrating language and content: Lessons from immersion. Educational Practice Report 11. National
5 sur 7
11.3.2008 9:33
http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/cbi.html
Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/miscpubs/ncrcdsll/epr11.htm Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (1997). Content-based instruction: Research foundations. In M. A. Snow, & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 5-21). NY: Longman. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. NY: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. NY: Longman. Lantolf, J. (1994). (Ed.) Sociocultural theory and second language learning. [Special issue of The Modern Language Journal, 78(4).] Lantolf, J. & Appel, G. (Eds.) Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Lightbrown, P.M. & Spada, N. (1993). How languages are learned. NY: Oxford University Press. Lyster, R. (1987). Speaking immersion. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 43(4), 701-717. Met, M. (1991). Learning language through content: Learning content through language. Foreign Language Annals, 24(4), 281-295. Met. M. (1999, January). Content-based instruction: Defining terms, making decisions. NFLC Reports. Washington, DC: The National Foreign Language Center. O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. NY: Cambridge University Press. Singer, M. (1990). Psychology of language: An introduction to sentence and discourse processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Stoller, F. (2002, March). Content-Based Instruction: A Shell for Language Teaching or a Framework for Strategic Language and Content Learning? Keynote presented at the annual meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Salt Lake City. (full transcript available at the CoBaLTT website). Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Swain, M. & Johnson, R.K. (1997). Immersion education: A category within bilingual education. In R. K. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.) Immersion Education: International Perspectives (pp. 1-16). NY: Cambridge University Press. Wells, G. (1994). The complementary contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky to a "language-based theory of learning." Linguistics and Education, 6, 41-90. Wesche, M. B. (1993). Discipline-based approaches to language study: Research issues and outcomes. In M. Krueger & F. Ryan (Eds.) Language and content: Discipline- and content-based approaches to language study. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
6 sur 7
11.3.2008 9:33