ASSIGNMENT/ASSESSMENT ITEM COVER SHEET

Student Name:
Sonia FIRST NAME Carpenter FAMILY / LAST NAME
Email: c3109550@uon.edu.au

Student Number: Course Code

3 1 0 9 5 5 0

Course Title
TESOL Curriculum and Methodology
(Example)

E D U C 6 0 2 5
(Example)

A B C D 1
Campus of Study:

Intro to University

Callaghan 20/5/2013 11:59pm

Assessment Item Title: A2 - Methodology Analysis

Due Date/Time:

Tutorial Group (If applicable):

Monday 2-4pm

Word Count (If applicable):

1998 w/o quotes

Lecturer/Tutor Name: AProf Shen Chen Extension Granted: Yes

No

Granted Until:

Please attach a copy of your extension approval

NB: STUDENTS MAY EXPECT THAT THIS ASSIGNMENT WILL BE RETURNED WITHIN 3 WEEKS OF THE DUE DATE OF SUBMISSION
Please tick box if applicable Students within the Faculty of Business and Law, Faculty of Science and Information Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment and the School of Nursing and Midwifery: I verify that I have completed the online Academic Integrity Module and adhered to its principles Students within the School of Education: "I understand that a minimum standard of correct referencing and academic literacy is required to pass all written assignments in the School of Education; and I have read and understood the School of Education Course Outline Policy Supplement, which includes important information related to assessment policies and procedures. I declare that this assessment item is my own work unless otherwise acknowledged and is in accordance with the Universitys academic integrity policy available from the Policy Library on the web at http://www.newcastle.edu.au/policylibrary/000608.html I certify that this assessment item has not been submitted previously for academic credit in this or any other course. I certify that I have not given a copy or have shown a copy of this assessment item to another student enrolled in the course. I acknowledge that the assessor of this assignment may, for the purpose of assessing this assignment: Reproduce this assessment item and provide a copy to another member of the Faculty; and/or Communicate a copy of this assessment item to a plagiarism checking service (which may then retain a copy of the item on its database for the purpose of future plagiarism checking). Submit the assessment item to other forms of plagiarism checking. I certify that any electronic version of this assessment item that I have submitted or will submit is identical to this paper version.

DATE STAMP HERE

Turnitin ID: (if applicable)

Paper ID: 331392660

Signature:

Sonia Carpenter__________________________________________

Date: 20/5/2013________________

Insert this way

EDUC6025 A2 Methodology Analysis

Sonia Carpenter c3109550

As an approach of language learning, target language immersion has been an idea with a contentious history characterised by a wealth of methods, each with distinct approaches, designs and procedures; the fact that versions of the immersion approach still exist today is testament to their potential for success when effectively applied. The Berlitz method, the natural approach, the reform method and the anti-grammatical method are some of the most well-known names of the earliest, late nineteenth century, immersion-based approaches . All of these were essentially patented reactions to the enduring grammar-translation method, and they all rejected the idea that target language meaning had to be associated with a mother tongue translation. From the outset these methods of language teaching have not been grounded in theoretical principles or research and even today, methods of language teaching that are immersion and learning-centred, such as Content and Language Integrated Learning, (CLIL) and content-based instruction (CBI) have a basis in practice or observation of practice, and the transformation of this into a language teaching method. English Second Language (ESL) students in Australian schools; especially secondary (high school) students would benefit from an adoption of the principles and techniques of immersion-based language teaching methods, especially when they enter the secondary stages (4-6) with limited experience of the English language.

The idea of immersion in a target language has potential in the current educational climate, despite the decline in popularity of the nineteenth-century methods

EDUC6025 A2 Methodology Analysis

Sonia Carpenter c3109550

and the subsequent varieties that were based on the founding principles of target language immersion. This is evidenced by a recent rise in popularity of two new learningcentred language teaching methods (Kumaravadivelu, 2006) known as Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and Content-Based Instruction (CBI). The CLIL method is an educational approach where curricular content is taught through the medium of a foreign language, typically to students participating in some form of mainstream education.(Dalton-Puffer, 2011, p. 183) Similar to the natural approach (Terrell, 1977), the focus in the CLIL method is on learning, rather than language, under the premise that a focus on learning facilitates a natural acquisition of language, based on the idea that second-language (L2) learning is effective when it mirrors the way a child learns their first language (L1), by immersion and imitation. CLIL programs are designed to be taught in a context where the medium is not a language spoken locally. (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2010, p. 370) CBI is very similar and the terms are for the most part interchangeable; it is defined as a method that integrates language instruction with subject matter instruction in the target languageexamples include immersion, language across the curriculum, and sheltered English. (Richards & Schmidt, 2010). Similarly, immersion programs are those where at least 50 per cent of instruction [is] provided through the second language for the program. (Genesee, 1987, p. 1; my emphasis) These programs are also designed to teach additional languages, with the focus is often on a significant secondary language to the dominant language that is spoken in a particular country or area. These features would initially indicate that immersion programs and CLIL/CBI methods are not applicable in an Australian context, where English is the sole medium of instruction in most schools and L2 proficiency presents no
2

EDUC6025 A2 Methodology Analysis

Sonia Carpenter c3109550

distinct advantages. There is no language equally dominant to English Australia, as in other parts of the world; there is instead a wide variety of languages used by diverse indigenous and ethnic minority groups, no one significantly large enough (Berthold, 1995) to warrant a recognised and structured implementation of the original CLIL/CBI methods in a program of any language other than English. In Australia there are only a few institutionalised programs like this; this is evidence of the often unrecognised large population of ESL students in Australian secondary schools. These students are subject to a type of immersion program through the absence of choice to participate in mainstream education through any other language medium than English, with the exceptions of very few specialist private schools. This monolingual linguistic climate is related to the social and cultural context of Australian society, and would significantly affect any attempt to adapt the techniques of English immersion programs into Australian schools. Applying an immersion program to learning English in the Australian context would be a new direction for immersion-based programs that are typically designed for social and cultural contexts with competing dominant languages, where proficiency in a second language is a practical necessity. Australia is often not considered such a society due to its historically monolingual society and culture, when this is actually the case for many immigrant students who attend Australian schools and must learn English to have any chance at employment or further study opportunities in Australia. Application of a CLIL or CBI method is possible in Australia with significant adaptation of the methods to suit the social and cultural context. When approximately one quarter of all students in NSW government schoolsfrom language backgrounds other than English (NSW
3

EDUC6025 A2 Methodology Analysis

Sonia Carpenter c3109550

Department of Education and Communities, 2005a) it is surprising that the majority of Australian schools not only teach exclusively in English, but also have very little institutional considerations for bilingual or multilingual student populations in their curriculum or syllabi. There is an unrecognised potential for English immersion-based language learning programs in the fact that Australian schools are English monolingual. The dominance of the English language could be used to support Australian ESL learners if a second language learning curriculum based on immersion methods was designed and implemented effectively into the existing content instruction of Australian secondary schools. This would not only maximise the potential of our ESL student population to succeed in our schools, but it would also maximise the potential of our secondary teachers to make their content accessible to all of their students. In Australia all content taught in the English medium, meaning that by virtue of speaking English as a second language, Australian ESL students experience an unrecognised, unsupportive version of the immersion programs of Canada and Wales (Berthold, 1995) where immersion is an integral part of the schools logistics and teaching philosophy, and application of the techniques of immersion program methods like CLIL and CBI would support these students if they were adapted to the Australian social and cultural context. If an ESL student meets certain criteria relating to the length of their residence in Australia or if as a group they form a significant percentage of a schools population, then some English language support, classes or resources may be dedicated to their development of English language proficiency, (NSW Department of Education and Communities, 2005b) but only to a limited extent. Adaptation of the approach,

EDUC6025 A2 Methodology Analysis

Sonia Carpenter c3109550

design and procedure of immersion language programs would involve a consideration of the acquisition of English as a language learning process to be developed concurrent to the instruction of content knowledge. This would involve significant redesigning of the current curriculum and syllabus documents to incorporate explicit recognition of English language learning, as well as professional development for all teachers in how English as a language is taught and learnt. Within Australia there are already arguments for the necessity of TESOL training for all Australian teachers, as the increasing population of students from non-English speaking backgrounds make it no longer sufficient that the significant language and cultural learning challenges of these students be the responsibility of TESOL specialist teachers. (Wales, 1989) A combination of training that would give all Australian teachers knowledge and understanding the language development process, and how it affect[s] learning in the classroom (Wales, 1989) and the implementation of a formal language teaching method for ESL students is essential for adequately meeting the needs of ESL students in Australian schools. The learning of English as a second language is not any kind of deliberate construction or supported method for mainstream Australian schools studying the current state curricula, and this is no different in the upcoming national curriculum for all of Australia. None of these documents contain a distinct syllabus for learning English as a foreign language, even within immersion-style CLIL or CBI method. They instead refer to the ESL scales, (Curriculum Corporation, 1994) a tool designed for mainstream teachers to use, should they choose, to scaffold their content for ESL students. (Multicultural Programs Unit, 2004) These ESL scales share the intent of CLIL and CBI

EDUC6025 A2 Methodology Analysis

Sonia Carpenter c3109550

methods but are not themselves a language learning method, and the absence of an explicit language learning method significant disadvantages a significant population of ESL student in Australian schools whose primary, and often initial interaction with English is in the secondary classroom context. In New South Wales, the Australian state with the greatest annual intake of immigrant populations (Iredale & Fox, 1997) these students must compete for their secondary qualifications either with no English language handicap, or at the price of the validity of their secondary qualification towards tertiary study. The scales are, however, the closest equivalent that mainstream Australian schools have to a language teaching method for the ESL students in Australian schools. Ideally, Australian schools would implement a language learning method like the direct method for teaching English to their ESL students, to give them the opportunity to explicitly study the English language; this would provide a scaffold to the compulsory critically academic study of English in the secondary school system. Constraints in resources for the implementation of any kind of English language classes for ESL students in Australia have to date made this an impossible resource to provide, and the unfulfilled need is what led to provision of the ESL scales as a substitute for a language learning method. This need not be the case. As English is the only official language in Australia, the regular content teachers within Australian secondary schools are already perfect candidates for teachers of learning methods like CLIL or CBI in English; a prerequisite of the CLIL method is teachers who are both language-learning experts and content-area experts. Australias qualified teachers are already specialists in the learning of their content-area, and professional development, as well as some redesign of teacher

EDUC6025 A2 Methodology Analysis

Sonia Carpenter c3109550

accreditation degrees could see them utilise their native-speaker proficiency in English to become language-learning experts as well. All they require is additional professional development in the language learning and teaching process so that they can take this into consideration in the delivery of their content material. This means that, despite the fact that Australia is largely monolingual and there is no competing dominant language, there is still a case for the implementation of a CLIL or CBI language learning method in Australian schools. The dedication of time and resources to achieve the implementation of an approach to teaching English as a language through the CLIL or CBI methods would be considerable, but not impossible for the Australian context.

Although an ideal integration of the CLIL or CBI methods, or even a formal English immersion program in Australia would involve the design of a curriculum that explicitly scaffolds English language development through regular content classes, the principles an immersion approach and CLIL/CBI methods could realistically be applied to Australian classrooms with minimal resource expenditure; secondary classrooms in particular would benefit from a more structured and explicit language learning method. Learning-centred methods like CLIL and CBI are definitely both the most needed and most practical solution for supporting for our significant adolescent ESL student population who are severely disadvantaged in an environment where the fluent and critical appreciation of English is a necessity for any success in the later secondary stages that culminate in a high-stakes examination; success in the courses a student participates in become a
7

EDUC6025 A2 Methodology Analysis

Sonia Carpenter c3109550

significant determining factor in their further education and career opportunities. The restrictive timeframe means implementation of separate English language development classes would only disadvantage students. CLIL and CBI methods offer a feasible solution for Australian schools to adequately support their ESL students within the current educational institution, where a monolingual history and context has seen a structure develop that gives very little opportunity to sufficiently support ESL learners.

References Berthold, M. (1995). Rising to the bilingual challenge : ten years of Queensland secondary school immersion. Canberra: National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia. Curriculum Corporation. (1994). ESL scales: a joint project of the States, Territories and the Commonwealth of Australia initiated by the Australian Education Council. Carlton: Curriculum Corporation. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-Language Integrated Learning: From Practice to Principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182-204. doi: doi:10.1017/S0267190511000092 Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages : studies of immersion and bilingual education. Cambridge: Newbury House Publishers. Iredale, R., & Fox, C. (1997). The Impact of Immigration on School Education in New South Wales, Australia. International Migration Review, 31(3), 655-669. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching : from method to post-method. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: more differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 367-375. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccp082 Multicultural Programs Unit. (2004). English as a Second Language: Guidelines for schools. (PD20050234). Darlinghurst: NSW Department of Education and Communities, Retrieved from

EDUC6025 A2 Methodology Analysis

Sonia Carpenter c3109550

https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/policies/student_serv/equity/comm_rela/d04_23_ESL_Gui delines.pdf. NSW Department of Education and Communities. (2005a). Multicultural Education Policy Retrieved 08 Nov, 2012, from https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/policies/student_serv/equity/comm_rela/PD20050234.sht ml NSW Department of Education and Communities. (2005b). Multicultural Education Policy: Implementation document summary Retrieved 01 Nov, 2012, from https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/policies/student_serv/equity/comm_rela/implementation _1_PD20050234.shtml?query=ESL Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th ed.). Harlow: Pearson. Terrell, T. D. (1977). A Natural Approach to Second Language Acquisition and Learning. The Modern Language Journal, 61(7), 325-337. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1977.tb05147.x Wales, M. L. (Ed.). (1989). English as a second language in schools : an introduction for class teachers. Geelong: Deakin University Press.