Upload

o SENAIT MELAKU HAILU

o

o My Clipboards
o

o My Uploads
o

o Analytics
o

o Account Settings
o

o Support
o

o Logout

Home

Technology

Education

More Topics

My Clipboards

For Uploaders

9 of 82

CONTENT-BASED EXERCISES FOR

TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS: A
SEMINAR PAPER of MICHAEL M.
MAGBANUA
11,796 views

Mikee Monte de Ramos

, ESL Lecturer at The Sultanate of Oman

Follow
Published on Feb 28, 2012

This is a seminar paper presented to the panelists of English Department (College of Languages,
Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments

3 Likes
Statistics
Notes

Be the first to comment

CONTENT-BASED EXERCISES FOR TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS:

A SEMINAR PAPER of MICHAEL M. MAGBANUA
1. 1. APPROVAL SHEET In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master
of Arts in Teaching with specialization in English Language Arts, this Seminar paper
entitled CONTENT-BASED GRAMMAR EXERCISES FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION STUDENTS prepared and submitted by MICHAEL M. MAGBANUA is
hereby recommended for acceptance.___________________________ EDILBERTA C.
BALA Date Adviser Accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
ofMaster of Arts in Teaching with Specialization in English Language
Arts.__________________________ NILDA R. SUNGA , Ph.D. Date Head, English
Department__________________________ LYDIA P. LALUNIO Date Dean College of
Language, Linguistics and Literature 1
2. 2. ACKNOWLEDGMENT This seminar paper would not have been made possible
without the helpof a number of people who tirelessly devoted their precious time and
expertisein reviewing the manuscripts, offering valuable suggestions for improvementand
for giving their insightful comments not to mention their selfless sharing ofreferences and
other relevant resources. Hence, my heartfelt gratitude to the following: My highly
encouraging colleagues in the College of Mary Immaculate, our Administrator;Ms. Pia
Marie Andres, the President; and most especially to Mrs. Cecille Santos-Andres,
theChairman of the Board, for her endearing moral and financial support while on my
way ofcompleting my MA units till the completion of this much coveted Degree. My
BEEd students, most especially our first batch of graduateswhom Iconsider as my
inspiration in this undertaking; my former IV BSEd Englishmajors; BSBio;
Engineering; and BIT students of Bulacan State University(Malolos Campus); and STI
College-Balagtas, my grass root in college teaching,whom I also owed a lot, most
specifically to kindhearted couples Mr. and Mrs.Kerwin C. Kaw and the old faculty and
staff. I should also acknowledge my beloved church mates in BalagtasChristian Church
and Ministries for their undying prayers for my householdand myself. I also would like to
remember those former and present ELT classmates and professorswho have enriched my
experience in English language teaching. I gained not only pedagogicalenrichment, but
friendship as well. Prof. Edilberta C. Bala of PNU, my patient considerate adviser,
whotirelessly gave her most valued time in proofreading, revising andrecommending this
paper for approval 2

3. 3. DEDICATION To My beloved family; My most treasured friends; STI CollegeBalagtas; BSU-Malolos English Faculty;My churchmates; my former and present
students; and My CMI family I wholeheartedly dedicate this humble undertaking 3
4. 4. TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page i Acknowledgement ii Dedication iii iv
Introduction Abstract v CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM and ITS SETTING 1 - 10
Significance of the Purpose of the Study Statement of the Problem Conceptual
Theoretical Framework Scope and Delimitation Studying Definition of
TermsCHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATUREFramework 11 - 70
CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES 71 - 72 CHAPTER IV The Grammar
Exercises (with Key toPRESENTATION OF MATERIALS 73 - 182 Correction)
CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 183- 185
Appendix A: Schematic DiagramBIBLIOGRAPHY 186- 192 APPENDICES 193-218
4
5. 5. Appendix C: Grammatical Appendix B: Table of Test Specifications
CURRICULUM VITAE 219-220 ABSTRACTName : Michael M.Descriptions
MagbanuaTitle : Content-Based Grammar Exercises for Teacher Education Cognitive
Content Based Language Instruction StudentsKey Concepts : Academic Language
Learning InstructionSpecialization : English Language ArtsAdviser : Prof. Edilberta C.
Bala A. Objectives This study recognizes the effectiveness of content-based language
instruction in the tertiary level particularly to Teacher Education students as the
pedagogical basis in developing integrative grammar exercises. B. Methodology The
researcher gathered related literatures and prepared bibliographical sketch. He then
prepared table of specifications, encoded reviewed articles. Finally, he utilized various
professional literatures in teacher education as sources of grammar exercises. 5
6. 6. C. The Materials The teacher education exercises in ten grammatical structureswere
categorized into three varying degrees of difficulty, that is, easy,average, and difficult.
The design was patterned after Heatons (1995).Hence, several of his models on item
types like multiple choice,completion types, and error recognition were used.D.
Conclusions Specifically, this study found out that it is very tedious to preparecontentbased instructional materials such as this for this entails muchtime and skills since
grammatical inputs from sources can be practicallylimited. That not all teacher educationreading materials contains awide-range of grammatical inputs specifically perfect tenses,
aspects, andpreposition of movement, among others. Moreover, while the
intendedgrammatical structures were not treated comprehensively, this mayaffect
students proficiency in answering the test items since commonstructures have been
overly-used throughout the items.E. Recommendations Prospective researches must pilot
the exercises to the teachereducation students to determine the effectiveness of the
instructionalmaterial. ESL instructors are encouraged to allow students experiencesimilar
procedure of doing the instructional material as part of thecourse requirement in the
program. On the other hand, peer critiquingof the sample exercises is also important.
Samples must be viewed andevaluated by both the language and content instructors to
determine thelimitations and/or comprehensibility of the instructional material.Hence,

development of rubrics for evaluation is highly recommended. Asto LET in mind, writers
then are encouraged to adapt the approach oftest preparation instead of using the generic
approach. 6
7. 7. CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUNDINTRODUCTION This
paper was inspired primarily of the teacher education students(both the old and the
present), and the in-service teachers whom the researcheris indebted to. For one, after
gained fruitful years of teaching in bothelementary and high school, he got a chance to
teach early adults in college.Those productive years he spent with four highly reputable
college institutionsin his progressing province of Bulacan made him consider writing this
humblepaper. Surprisingly what he found out was, both his present and old
collegestudents did not make any marked difference in language proficiency, or
thefacility in grammar usage. Never mind the kind of English of vocational technical
students, or the welder, masons as one professor, lamented. Butdo not ignore the
how bad our teacher education students English are, sheargued. Can you think of
the wisdom behind this eyebrow raising statement?Its but whose English is being
criticized with a great populace? The favoritesubject of the mimicry and indignation from
students, co-teachers, evaluators,and parentsarent its teachers English? (Gonzales,
2004) This is a perennial problem in which the researcher believes needsspecial attention
by almost all teacher education institutions today. Evaluators 7
8. 8. feed back to most student teachers demonstration teaching (or even the usualdaily
classroom presentation) would always include faulty grammar on top, nextton teaching
methodology, mastery of the subject matter, and classroommanagement. Now that the
researcher is already a full-pledged student teachersupervisor, similarly, he sees how
relevant developing instructional materialsbe, which would best cater to innumerable
student teachers weakness ingrammar usage; since the approach embraces the principle
of learning bothlanguage and content. (Brinton, 1997). To reiterate Gonzales sentiment
over our teacher education applicants isthat they might be of course familiar with the
teaching techniques, approachesand all those things, hence, they get high rate. However,
they lost the jobbecause of poor grammar. You would really pity these teacher applicants
seeingthem desperately leaving the demonstration room. But whos to blame? Thereare
several factors include. But let me point you to what most educators havetried out and
proven effective at their own respects. Content-Based Instruction(popularly known as the
CBI) has been adapted across the country. In thePhilippines, our present basic education
curriculum is patterned after thisinnovative approach to teaching and learning. Would-be
teachers have toimmediate goals to accomplish, that is, to get a teaching slot, and to pass
theLET. Now, to achieve this, one must be essentially competent in bothcommunication
skills and their understanding about the content of LET. 8
9. 9. Similarly, Colinares (2002) believes that one of the effective strategiesthat will focus
and nourish the interest of teacher education students is theutilization of professional
education materials for the grammar review lessons.Needless to state, a prospective
teacher has to undergo an intensive review ofgrammar because once in the service, s/he
would have to use, if not, teach thesubject. The use of the content education subjects as
the springboard forlessons in English enables one to hit two birds with one stonea

review both ingrammar and for the teacher s licensure examination. Thus, this
integrativestructuralist trend in language teaching and testing invariably heightens
onesinterest and subsequently enhances potent learning.STATEMENT OF THE
PROBLEM The primary concern of this study is to find the theoretical, andpedagogical
bases of CBI and identify the most frequently used grammaticalstructures of professional
education subjects.PURPOSE OF THE STUDY This paper points out two major
purposes, as follows: Provide the teachereducation students with relevant instructional
materials in learninggrammatical structures; alongside keeping them familiarized with
importantprofessional education concepts, and then offer ESL college instructors with 9
10. 10. alternative language teaching-testing materials, other than the conventionalgeneric
approach to testing grammar competence.SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY This paper
is very useful for several reasons. Different grammarexercises will make students
interestingly discover their strengths andweaknesses to various grammatical structures.
They may acquire grammaticalproficiency both in reading, and particularly in writing.
The instructionalmaterial will make English instructor highly motivated as s/he tries to
see therelevance of the approach; since the content is being used as a stimulus inlanguage
learning. This may simplify the teaching procedures since answerkeys to all grammar
exercises are given right after each area. This wouldcertainly be very helpful to English
teachers who also mentor grammar areas(i.e structural analysis and error identification)
of LET Review. Moreover, not afew ESL teachers consider the different grammar
exercises as effectivesupplementary activities to general approach of teaching and testing
ofgrammar proficiency. Finally, ProfEd instructors would benefit a lot sincemeaningful
content learning among his/her students is being achieved; andS/he could save
instructional time and effort since retention of the learnedmaterial or lesson is being
maximized through integration. 10
11. 11. SCOPE AND DELIMITATION This paper primarily involved students who were
taking teachereducation programsBachelor of Early Childhood Education (BECEd);
Bachelorof Elementary Education (BEEd); Bachelor of Secondary Education
(BSEd);Bachelor of Science in Industrial Education (BSIEd);and Bachelor of Science
inEducation (BSE). They were considered in this study for these reasons: To date the
researcher, aside from a professional teacher, also chairs theEducation Department of the
College of Mary Immaculate. He also assumessupervisory duty to thirty off-campus
practice teachers. Being the trustedEnglish instructor of the college, he appropriately put
in top of his mind noneother than, but his very own department. Furthermore, on
Education studentcomparatively lags behind other students of Engineering,
InformationTechnology, Accountancy, and Nursing as far as grammar proficiency
isconcern. The researcher used professional trends education materials liketextbooks,
periodicals, journals, interactive multi media devices, as well asinternet-based articles
about teaching and education. Although locally authoredmaterials were have become the
top choice, foreign education books were alsogiven importance in this study. This is so,
since the approach, (CBLI) embodiesfunctional grammar and contextualization (Halliday,
1976). Ten (10) core areas of professional education were included, based on thetable of
specifications of the Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET). These 11

12. 12. include, Foundations of Education; Principles, Methods, Approaches,Strategies and

Techniques of Teaching; Test, Measurement and Evaluation;Human Growth and Learning
Development; Guidance and Counseling; andSocial Philosophies For grammatical
structures, the ten top-most weaknesses of students ingrammar were considered; hence,
subject-verb agreement, verbs, prepositions,verb tenses-aspect system, conjunctions,
prepositions, nouns, phrases andclauses, word form/function, wh-question, and yes- no
question. Please refer toAppendix B for the complete table of specifications of the
grammar exercises. The grammar exercises though higher levels can also utilize
primarilyintended for freshman education studentsmost particularly for review,mastery,
or just for refresher purposes.THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Beginning in 1970s
interest in the teaching of real-language hasincreased as scholars have become more
and more interested in the languageused in various social and cultural settings. As a
result, there has been a rapidshift of research and practice from audiolingual and
grammar-translationmethods to the exploration of communicative language teaching, and
muchattention has been paid to focusing on global and integrative tasks, rather thanon
discrete structures. Savignon, (1972) makes clear that communicationcannot take place
in the absence of structure, or grammar, a set of shared 12
13. 13. assumptions about how language works Therefore, as he continues, Canaleand
Swain (1980) included grammatical competence into their model ofcommunicative
competence. However, a review of the research starting from1970s (Ellis, 1997) shows
that communicative L2 teaching was perceived as adeparture from grammar in favor of
focusing on the meaning only. Comparisonof communicative (also referred as meaningbased) to form-based (also referredas structure-based) approaches in L2 teaching shows
that communicativelanguage teaching enables students to perform spontaneously, but
does notguarantee linguistic accuracy of the utterances. On the other hand, formbasedapproaches focus on the linguistic and grammatical structures, which makesthe
speech grammatically accurate. But this accuracy is observed in preparedspeech only, and
students lack the ability to produce spontaneous speech. Integrative grammar teaching,
which presupposes students interactionwhile learning, cab be viewed as a cognitive
process of learning an L2 thatreflects the sociocultural theory proposed by the Russian
psychologist Vygotsky(1978). In talking about the development of a childs brain and
hissocialization, Vygotsky argues that there is a strong relationship betweenlearning and
cognitive development, in which cognition develops as a result ofsocial interaction and
sharing the responsibility with a parent or a morecompetent person. Similar to Vygotskys
theory is the often-criticized Krashens (1981, 1985)Input Hypothesis also well-known
as the i+1 hypothesis. According to thishypothesis, i represents students current
level of L2 proficiency and +1 is levelof the linguistic form or function beyond the
present students level. Krashens 13
14. 14. Input Hypothesis, and Vygotskys Zone of Proximal Development are
basicallydescribing the same cognitive process of social interaction in
studentsdevelopment. For Krashen, optimal input should be comprehensible, i.e.focused
on the meaning and not on the form.CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The concept of
developing the proposed grammar exercises for teachereducation students is mainly
anchored again, on the law of exercise, as well asseveral approaches and to the second

language teaching, to citeCognitiveAcademic Language Learning; Language Across

Curriculum; Theme-BasedApproach; Whole Language Approach; English for Academic
and SpecificPurposes; and the newer method, Content-Based Language Instruction. The
researchers strategy to utilize principles of teaching and testinggrammar catches perforce
the interest and attention of the learner who has theLicensure Examination (LET) in
mind. It easily falls within the realm of teachingEnglish for academic purposes and the
contentoriented approach to Englishinstruction. (Harvey, 1987). Taking the interest of
students into account in terms of over learning ofmaterials past the point of mastery
facilitates retention and learning. This leadsto an emphasis of the importance of teaching
all aspects of grammar in context. Appropriate contextualization can only be achieved if a
teacher finds orcreates realistic situations, language texts that are meaningful to students.
14
15. 15. Thus, contextualization is partly a matter of being faithful to the language, byfinding
appropriate examples, and partly a matter of being responsive tostudents needs. (Murcia
and Hilles, 1998) Fig. 1 Paradigm of Content-Based Instruction in Language Teaching
and Learning The paradigm above graphically illustrates the significant role ofintegrating
content in teaching and testing grammar. It is thereforehypothesized that mastery in both
ways can be best achieved in an ESLinstructor uses integrative approaches, hence the
CBI. This innovativeapproach to language teaching usually come in varied forms
respective of thenature and purpose of target language competency.Definition of
TermsContent-Based Instruction is a teaching method that emphasizes learningabout
something rather than learning about language. (Davies 2003) 15
16. 16. Content-Based Language Instruction is an innovative approach in whichsecond
language is used as the medium of instruction for mathematics, science,social studies,
and other academic subjects. Instruction is usually given by alanguage teacher or by a
combination of the language and content teachers.English for Academic Purpose is the
teaching and learning of Englishspecifically to acquire academic proficiency in a
particular learning content area.English for Special Purpose refers to the teaching of a
specific genre of mostlytechnical English for students with specific goals, careers or
fields of study.Functional Grammar is the name given to any of a range of functionallybasedapproaches to the scientific study of language.Whole Language Approach
commonly refereed to as Natural Approach learninglanguage in a meaningful context. It
is developmental language model based onthe premise that youngsters acquire language
(speaking, reading, and writing asnaturally as they learn to walk and talk, when they are
invited to engage in self-motivating activities that are stimulating, interesting, social,
meaning-based,purposeful, interactive and most of all enjoyable.) 16
17. 17. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE This part discusses
thoroughly the readings done by the researcher as aresult of his surveys of professional
books on language teaching and learning,unpublished theses and dissertations, ESL
periodicals, web-based articles, andlocally published textbooks, workbooks and
worktexts. This chapter posits twomajor concerns: the rationale and development of
Content-Based Instruction,and the theoretical issues in utilizing functional grammar to
both languageteaching and testing. Locally made studies were also surveyed; that is

todetermine the effect of this innovative approach among ESL teachers,particularly to

college teaching. Specifically, the presentation was organized in aconceptual order. First
part looks at the approach (the CBI)the proponents;the origins and precursors; the
pedagogical definitions; the rationale; thelinguistic supports; related research conducted;
the pedagogical implications;strengths and limitations. Moreover, the researcher also
surveyed relatedstudies that have been conducted locally and internationally. Second part
presents an in-depth discussion about the grammar usage,which includes a closer look
into definitions given by languageexperts; current issues on the teaching and testing of
grammar in the tertiarylevel. Alongside with this, the researcher also surveyed six
different locallymade worktext use in the teaching of grammar to college students. 17
18. 18. Definitions and Origins of CBI What do LAC, WLA, EAP, ESP, EST, CALLA,
CALP, CBLI, CoBaLTT havein common? Obviously, well-read ESL teachers would all
agree that theyre allbut initials buzzed in the field of language teaching and learning.
Second,researchers who share similar interest in studying innovative approaches
inintermarrying content and language in an ESL classroom could easily tell thatall these
terminologies are anchored upon the principle of integration. Whileknown in various
names, one could specifically point it out that all theseapproaches are under the umbrella
of what most language experts call Content-Based Instruction. Different experts in
pedagogical linguistics like Blanton (1992), Brinton,Snow & Wesche (1989), Crandall
(1992) to name a few share a general conceptbehind CBI. To sum it up, Content-Based
Instruction is "...an approach tolanguage instruction in which the second or foreign
language is used as amedium of instruction for mathematics, science, social studies and
otheracademic subjects. It is the vehicle used for teaching and acquiring subjectspecific
knowledge. (Crandall, 2006). Furthermore, it is based on theunderlying principle that
successful material in a meaningful contextualizedform, with the primary focus on
acquiring information and knowledge. Likewise, Prof. Niki Peachey, in The British
Council (2006) relates thatthe focus of CBI lesson is on the topic or subject matter.
During the lesson, thestudents are focused on learning about something. This could be
anything thatinterests them from a serious science subject to their favorite pop star or
even a 18
19. 19. topical news story or film. They learn about this subject using the languagethey are
trying to learn, rather than their native language, as a tool fordeveloping knowledge and
so they develop their linguistic ability in the targetlanguage. This is thought to be a more
natural way of developing languageability and one that corresponds more to the way
learners originally learn theirfirst language. Parallel to Peacheys description, the Center
for Advanced Research onLanguage Acquisition, (CARLA 2006), of the University of
Minnesotaenumerated the origins and definitions of CBI from different
researchers.Brinton & Maste (1997, p.2) for instance defined it as, the integration
ofparticular content with language teaching aims...the concurrent teaching ofacademic
subject matter and second language skills". They further emphasizedthat, CBI views
the target language largely as the vehicle through whichsubject matter content is learned
rather than as the immediate object of study".Wesche (1993) on the other hand, claimed
that, CBI is aimed at thedevelopment of use-oriented second and foreign language
skills and isdistinguished by the concurrent learning of a specific content and

relatedlanguage use skills. What qualifies as content in CBI? CARLA (2006) identifies
commonviewpoints of the experts as a curriculum in which concepts were taught
throughthe foreign language ... appropriate to the grade level of the students..."
Curtainand Pesola (1994) 19
20. 20. While Genesee (1994) suggests that content ...need not be academic; itcan include
any topic, theme, or non-language issue of interest or importance tothe learners. Met
(1991) proposes that "... content in content-based programsrepresents material that is
cognitively engaging and demanding for the learner,and is material that extends beyond
the target language or target culture" She further claimed that,"...what we teach in any
kind of content-basedcourse is not the content itself but some form of the discourse of
that contentnot,for example, literature itself (which can only be experienced) but how
to analyzeliterature...for every body of content that we recognize as suchlike the
physicalworld or human cultural behaviorthere is a discourse communitylike
physicsor anthropologywhich provides us with the means to analyze, talk about,
andwrite about that content...Thus, for teachers the problem is how to acculturatestudents
to the relevant discourse communities, and for students the problem ishow to become
acculturated to those communities" (Eskey, 1997). With regards to its origin, Swain &
Johnson (1997) accounts that theapproach is most often associated with the genesis of
language immersioneducation in Canada in 1965. However, they argued that contentbasedinstruction is hardly a new phenomenon. Similarly, Crandall (1992) of the
University of Maryland BaltimoreCounty reported that the number of language minority
students in the UnitedStates is dramatically escalating. Consequently, the American
classroom nowis multiethnic, and multilingual at all levels. In response, a number of
programmodels have been developed to meet the needs of language programs
thatintegrate academic content into language instruction. 20
21. 21. Related to Crandalls report, Dr. Thomas G. Sticht, President and SeniorScientist of
Applied Behavior & Cognitive Sciences, Inc. traced the root of CBI inthe early 40s. He
revealed that in World War II, the military services conductedextensive programs aimed
at providing new recruits with reading skills of afunctional nature. Soldiers and sailors
learned to read so they couldcomprehend material about military life. Because the time
for teaching literacywas very limited, usually less than three months, the reading
instructionalmaterials had the complexity of materials typically encountered by the end
ofthe fourth grade of public education, but they did not cover the breadth ofcontent that a
typical fourth grader would have encountered. Rather, theytaught reading by emphasizing
a relatively narrow body of content knowledgeabout the military. Further, the readers
were designed to build on the newrecruits experiences and prior knowledge about the
world acquired beforeentering service. For instance, the Private Pete series starts with
Pete at homeon the farm. Then he goes to a recruiter and signs up to join the Army, rides
atrain to camp and is assigned to a barracks, and so forth. Because that is theprocedure
the vast majority of new recruits in literacy programs followed injoining the Army in the
1940s, this was content: prior knowledge-- that theycould talk about and comprehend, but
they could not necessarily read wordslike "farm," "recruiter," "train," or "barracks."
(NCSALL, 2005) Natural language acquisition occurs in context; natural language is
neverlearned divorced from meaning, and content-based instruction provides a 21

22. 22. context for meaningful communication to occur (Curtain, 1995; Met, 1991);second
language acquisition increases with content-based language instruction,because students
learn language best when there is an emphasis on relevant,meaningful content rather than
on the language itself; "People do not learnlanguages and then use them, but learn
languages by using them" however,both form and meaning are important and are not
readily separable in languagelearning (e.g., Lightbrown & Spada, 1993; Met, 1991;
Wells, 1994). CBI promotes negotiation of meaning, which is known to enhancelanguage
acquisition (students should negotiate both form and content)(Lightbrown & Spada,
1993). Second language acquisition is enhanced by comprehensible input(Krashen, 1982;
1985), which is a key pedagogical technique in content-basedinstruction; however,
comprehensible input alone does not sufficestudentsneed form-focused content
instruction (an explicit focus on relevant andcontextually appropriate language forms to
support content learning) (Lyster,1987; Met, 1991; Swain, 1985). Cummins (1981) notion
of Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency(CALP) as contrasted with Basic
Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS)shows that students need to be learning
content while they are developingCALP; there is not enough time to separate language
and content learning; 22
23. 23. postponing content instruction while students develop more advanced(academic)
language is not only impractical, but it also ignores students needs,interests, and
cognitive levels (consider severe time constraints on languagestudy prescribed by U.S.
higher education, (Byrnes, 2000). CBI provides opportunities for Vygotskian-based
concepts thought tocontribute to second language acquisitionnegotiation in the Zone of
ProximalDevelopment, 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 moreconcrete rather than
abstract (as in traditional language instruction where thefocus is on the language itself)
(Genesee, 1994). The integration of language and content in instruction respects
thespecificity of functional language use (it recognizes that meaning changesdepending
upon context) (Genesee, 1994). More sophisticated, complexlanguage is best taught
within a framework that focuses on complex andauthentic content. CBI lends itself to
cooperative learning, which has been shown to resultin improved learning (Slavin, 1995;
Crandall, 1993). CBI approaches, whichpromote the importance of learning strategies,
provide the curricular resources 23
24. 24. for development of the strategic language and content learner (OMalley &Chamot,
1990). CBI lends itself to the incorporation of a variety of thinking skills, andlearning
strategies which lead to rich language development, e.g., informationgathering skills
absorbing, questioning; organizing skillscategorizing,comparing, representing;
analyzing skillsidentifying main ideas, identifyingattributes and components,
identifying relationships, patterns; generating skillsinferring, predicting, estimating
(ASCD, Dimensions of Thinking) (Curtain, 1995;Met, 1991). Research on extensive
reading in a second language shows that readingcoherent extended materials leads to
improved language abilities, greatercontent-area learning, and higher motivation (Elley,
1991); the GeorgetownGerman program has based the curriculum on texts and genre and
reportexciting results in students speaking and writing proficiency Support for CBIfrom

Educational and Cognitive Psychology Anderson (1990; 1993) has proposed a cognitive
learning theory forinstruction that integrates attention to content and language. In this
theoryskills (including language) and knowledge follow a general sequence of states
oflearning from the cognitive stage (students notice and attend to information inworking
memory; they engage in solving basic problems with the language and 24
25. 25. concepts theyre acquiring) to the associative stage (errors are corrected
andconnections to related knowledge are strengthened; knowledge and skills
becomeproceduralized) to the autonomous stage (performance becomes
automatic,requiring little attentional effort; in this stage cognitive resources are feed up
forthe next cycle of problem solving, concept learning). The presentation of coherent and
meaningful information leads to deeperprocessing, which results in better learning
(Anderson, 1990) and informationthat is more elaborated is learned and recalled better.
Information that has agreater number of connections to related information promotes
better learning(it is more likely that content will have a greater number of connections to
otherinformation) (Anderson, 1990). Facts and skills taught in isolation need much more
practice andrehearsal before they can be internalized or put into long term
memory;coherently presented information (thematically organized) is easier to
rememberand leads to improved learning (Singer, 1990); information that has a
greaternumber of connections to related information enhances learning, and contentacts
as the driving force for the connections to be made. Content-based instruction develops a
wider range of discourse skills thandoes traditional language instruction (because of the
incorporation of highercognitive skills); Byrnes (2000) notes the increasing demands for
high levels of 25
26. 26. literacy in languages other than English. When planned thoughtfully, content-based
activities have the possibility of leading to "flow experiences," i.e., theoptimal
experiences emerge when personal skills are matched by high
challenge(Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, in Grabe & Stoller, 1997 and Stoller, 2002). Contentbased instruction provides for cognitive engagement; tasks thatare intrinsically interesting
and cognitively engaging will lead to more and betteropportunities for second language
acquisition; this is particularly importantwhen 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 touse the content knowledge and expertise they bring to class (they activate
theirprior knowledge, which leads to increased learning of language and contentmaterial).
Joann Crandall of the University of Baltimore County, in CAL Digest(2006) concluded
that integrated and content instruction offers a means bywhich English as a second
language (ESL) students can continue theiracademic or cognitive development while they
are also acquiring academiclanguage proficiency. It also offers a means by which foreign
language studentscan develop fuller proficiency in the foreign language they are
studying. Inforeign language or two-way bilingual immersion programs, in which a
portionof the curriculum is taught through the foreign language, some type ofintegrated
language and content appears to be essential. 26

27. 27. Research conducted in a variety of program models (Grabe & Stoller,1997) has
shown that content-based instruction results in language learning,content learning,
increased motivation and interest levels, and greateropportunities for employment (where
language abilities are necessary)theresearch has emerged in ESL K-12 contexts , FL K12 (immersion and bilingualprograms), post-secondary FL and ESL contexts, and FLAC
programs. CBIallows for greater flexibility to be built into the curriculum and activities;
thereare more opportunities to adjust to the needs and interests of students. ERIC Digest
(2006) also supports Sticths (2006) claim on the principle ofCBI. ERIC further
emphasized that an integrated language and contentinstruction provides opportunities for
learners to acquire a new languagethrough the study of academic discipline such as
mathematics, science andhistory. Also known as content-centered or contend based
language learning(CCLL/CBLL), this approach is an effective way for both English
languagelearners and learners of other languages to develop their language skills andtheir
academic skills at the same time. Programs that use content-centeredlanguage learning
include total and partial immersion, two-way (dual)immersion, bilingual education, and
sheltered English. Stitch in NCSALL (2006) reflects that in adult education, including
thelearning of English for speakers of other languages (ESOL), content-based 27
28. 28. instruction is an instruction that focuses upon the substance or meaning of thecontent
that is being taught. He refuted that this is in contrast to "generalliteracy" or "general
language" instruction, which use topics or subject mattersimply as a vehicle for teaching
reading and writing, or the grammar or other"mechanics" of English language, as general
processes (Brinton, Snow, &Wesche, 1989). Various "general literacy" programs may
also emphasize thelearning of general processes such as "learning to learn," "critical
thinking," or"problem solving" skills. In such instruction, the emphasis is upon
developingthe general processes, and the content that is used is generally treated as
ofonly incidental interest. Niki Peachey, teacher, trainer, and materials writer of The
BritishCouncil (2006), identified the advantages and disadvantages of CBI. Among
theadvantages, he claimed that, this can make learning a language moreinteresting and
motivating. Students can use the language to fulfill a realpurpose, which can make
students both more independent and confident.Furthermore, students can also develop a
much knowledge of the worldthrough CBI, which can feedback into improving, and
supporting their generaleducational needs. CBI is also very popular among EAP (English
for Academic Purposes)teachers as it helps students to develop valuable study skills such
as notetaking, summarizing and extracting key information from texts. Takinginformation
from different sources, re-evaluating and restructuring that 28
29. 29. information can help students to develop very valuable thinking skills that canthen be
transferred to other subjects. Though the approach is perceived to be very effective, yet
offers severalchallenges to ESL/ESOL teachers. Again The British Council identified
fourmajor limitations, like it does not focused on language learning, some studentsmay
feel confused or may even feel that they arent improving their languageskills. Deal with
this by including some form of language focused follow-upexercises to help draw
attention to linguistic features within the materials andconsolidate any difficult
vocabulary or grammar points. Particularly in monolingual classes, the overuse of the
students nativelanguage during parts of the lesson can be a problem. Because the

lessonexplicitly focused on language practice students find it much easier and quickerto
use their mother tongue. Try sharing your rationale with students andexplain the benefits
of using the target language rather than their mothertongue. It can be hard to find
information sources and text that lower levels canunderstand. Also the sharing of
information in the target language may causegreat difficulties. A possible way around this
at lower levels is either to usetexts in the students native language or then get them use
the target languagefor the sharing of information and end product, or to have texts in the
target 29
30. 30. language, but allow the students to present the end product in their nativelanguage.
These options should reduce the level of challenge. Some students may copy directly
from the source texts they use to gettheir information. Avoid this by designing tasks that
demand students evaluatethe information in some way, to draw conclusions or actually to
put it to somepractical use. Having information sources that have conflicting information
canalso be helpful; as students have to decide which information they agree with ormost
believe.The Precursors of Content-Based Instruction This is to reiterate what most
language experts claimed about theexistence behind the principle of integration across
discipline, and likewise,emphasize that concept behind CBI is, actually no longer foreign
to Englishlanguage teaching. (Crandall, 1992; Brinton, 1997; & Stitch, 2006).
Theapproach may somehow package in different box, but shows semblances insubstance;
hence, the program models by Joann Crandall. Alongside withCrandalls models, the
researcher personally compiled these related integrativeapproaches and includes
specific background for each. The first tenapproaches may have popularized prior to the
widespread utilization of CBIacross the globe. Likewise, newer modifications of CBI
would be dealt later ofthe presentation, such as Language Across the Curriculum; ThemeBasedApproach; Whole Language Approach; Cognitive Academic Language Learning 30
31. 31. Approach Cognitive; English for Academic Purposes; English for SpecificPurposes;
Sheltered Subject Matter Teaching; Sheltered Instruction; and Adjunct ModelLanguages
Across the Curriculum (LAC) The LAC movement follows the example set by the
Writing Across theCurriculum (WAC) movement of the 1980s, which sought to use
writing as acentral learning tool in classes outside the English department. Rather
thanrelegating writing instruction to classes in literature or composition, WACprovides
advice and assistance to students for the inculcation of the skillsneeded for writing in
each curricular specialty. Similarly, LAC works withfaculty to identify the specific
vocabulary and genres that students need inorder to function effectively in another
language in their respective disciplines(Fichera & Straight, 1997). LAC also draws upon
the content-based language instruction movementof the 1990s (Brinton, Snow, &
Wesche, 1989; Krueger & Ryan, 1993; Stryker &Leaver, 1997). Instruction that
emphasizes purposeful comprehension andcommunicative production yields superior
receptive and expressive accuracy, 31
32. 32. complexity, and fluency. In brief, students who learn language for a purposelearn it
better. LAC aims to facilitate the use of languages in a variety of meaningfulcontexts and
to motivate and reward students for using their multilingual skillsin every class they take
at each level in the university curriculum, thuspreparing them for the cross-cultural and

multilingual demands andopportunities of a global society (Consortium for Languages

Across theCurriculum, 1996).Theme-Based Approach (TBA) In these programs, a
language curriculum is developed around selectedtopics drawn from one content area
(e.g. marketing) or from across thecurriculum (e.g. pollution and the environment). The
goal is to assist learners indeveloping general academic language skills through
interesting and relevantcontent. Similarly, Brewer (2000), claims that theme-based
approach is believedto be the most productive in helping teachers design a
developmentallyappropriate curriculum since the idea of integration is not a new one,
ever sincethe turn of the century when John Dewey (1859-1952) advocated
theorganization of curriculum around projects that would interest and involvechildren.
This is grounded upon the premise that children in elementary days 32
33. 33. had their reading class first thing in the morning, math right before lunch, andscience,
in the afternoon. Yet when children learn outside of school, they learnin wholes. For
example, a child visiting tide pools could learn about manythings at once: language arts
(learning vocabulary for the animals and plantsof the tide pools); physical skills (staying
on top of the slippery rocks);classification (noticing which animals are related; the
environment (noticingpollution or litter); family stories (hearing parents tell about when
they visitedthese tide pools as children); and so on. Thus, a childs learning
experiencesoutside school are not divisible into subject-matter areas. She
furthersuggested that organizing learning experiences around a theme can beproductive
but if thematic teaching is to be successful, the theme must becarefully selected, activities
carefully planned, and evaluation of the theme andof individual childrens progress
carefully monitored.Whole Language Approach (WLA) According to Smith (1982),
whole language approach is commonlyreferred to as natural approach of language
learning in a meaningful context. Itis developmental language model based on the
premise that youngsters acquirelanguage (speaking, reading, and writing) as naturally as
they learn to walk andtalk; when they are invited to engage in self-motivating activities
that arestimulating, interesting, social, meaning-based, purposeful, interactive andmost of
all, enjoyable. 33
34. 34. Goodman (1986) supports the definition above. He said that thephilosophy of whole
language is based on the concept that students need toexperience language as an
integrated whole. It focuses on the need for anintegrated approach to language instruction
within a context that is meaningfulto students. The approach is consistent with integrated
language and contentinstruction as both emphasize meaningful engagement and authentic
languageuse, and both link oral and written language development (Blanton,
1992).Whole language strategies that have been implemented in contentcenteredlanguage classes include dialogue journals, reading response journals,
learninglogs, process-based writing, and language experiences stories (Crandall, 1992).
In relation to this, Goodman, Calkins, and Atwell (1986) and Smith(1987) in Villamin,
et.al. (1994), identified the attributes of whole languageapproach as follows: A language
arts is an integrated curriculum; languagearts is learner-centered; language and life
experiences are inseperable; languagelearning is natural; language is used under real
communication situations toexpress ideas and feelings, thus encouraging social and
personal development. According to these researchers, whole language approach has

twofundamental goals, that is: (1) to use communication situations to express ideasand
feelings, and (2) to foster love of reading for enjoyment. 34
35. 35. In this integrative approach, the teacher and the students workcollaboratively.
Authentic texts or real childrens literaturefairy tales, andfolktales, fables, legends,
myths, poems, parables, and riddlesare used forreading purposes. The teacher provides
a lot of group interaction through avariety of strategies: speech choir, jazz chants,
chamber theater, readerstheater, and finger plays. Comprehension is supported by active
interpretation,and is also enhanced by activating prior knowledge, using advance
organizersand prediction techniques. Listening and speaking activities pave the way
forsetting the purpose, surveying the text, predicting outcomes, and consideringliterary
elements.Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) This approach
combines language, content, and learning strategyinstruction into a transitional ESL
approach for upper elementary andsecondary students of intermediate or advanced
English proficiency (Chamot &OMalley, 1987).English for Academic Purposes (EAP)
The emergence of subject content-based (as opposed to skill-based) EAPcourses in the
1980s (Brinton, Snow & Wesche 1989) raises the issue of whichtypes of skills and
knowledge are necessary for EAP trainers to deliver effective 35
36. 36. and professional courses for ESL/EFL students intending to follow collegedegree
programs in English speaking countries. By definition, English foracademic purpose is an
integrative approach to teaching and learning in orderto achieve proficiency in a
particular content area using the English languageas the medium of instruction. Krashen
(1985) identified what he calls atransition problem to a perceived gap in the English
Language and study skillsabilities of learners who have passed through traditional
language classes, andthose required for study purposes within universities. He argues that
subjectcontent-based curses can impart both subject knowledge and languagecompetence
at the same time. More recently, the work of Kasper (1997) has greatly strengthened
theevidence for effectiveness of content-based courses. She has reported bothimproved
language and content performance among students exposed tocontent-based EAP
programs, higher scores on measures of reading proficiency,and higher pass rates on ESL
courses. She also provides quantitative evidencethat such students establish and retain
performance advantage over studentsexposed to non-content-based EAP training. He
work supports the views ofBenesch 1988, Guyer & Peterson 1988, and Snow & Brinton
1988, thatcontent-based programs facilitate ESL students transition to
academicmainstream college courses, increasing the likelihood that such students
willgain a college degree. The trend towards content-based EAP training program
presents a clearchallenge to EAP instructors. How much longer will EAP training be done
by 36
37. 37. instructors who may lack specific background knowledge of their learnersspecialist
disciplines? How much longer will the traditional emphasis ontraining in language and
study skills be regarded as adequate in the face of thegrowing body persuasive evidence
for the effectiveness of subject content-basedprograms? It may therefore be necessary for
EAP trainers to possess a certainlevel of background knowledge in their students
academic subjects in order tomeet this challenge. Timothy Bell of Kuwait University in

The Internet TESL Journal (2002)reveals the revised version of his paper given at the
British Council LAN-ECSCS during a Project Conference in Bali on December 1996.
The programconsisted of content-based English Language and study skills training in
thefield of Biotechnology. The research, Do EAP Teachers Require Knowledge ofTheir
Students Specialist Academic Subjects? aimed to explore the issue of howmuch, if any,
subject content knowledge is required for EAP teachers tosuccessfully prepare their
learners for academic study at tertiary level. It willbegin by considering the research
evidence for the effectiveness of subjectcontent-based courses, and then proceed to
describe two EAP programs givenat the Universities of Indonesia. Bell (2002), points out
that in traditional, skill-based, EAP courses, it has generally been thought that the trainer
does notrequire specialized academic knowledge of the learners major subject of
study.This is because such training focused on developing language and study skillsand
not on the academic subject itself. The learners, it is often argued, an dealwith
complexities of terminology and ambiguities of subject content that may bebeyond the
trainers knowledge of the specialist subject. EAP trainers were 37
38. 38. typically told to exploit queries about subject content, so as to provideopportunities
for the students to develop their fluency, produce extendedspoken discourse, and
effectively share their knowledge of the subject.English for Specific Purposes (ESP)
Laurence Anthony of the Department of Information and ComputerEngineering, Faculty
of Engineering, of Okayama University of Science reportedthat from the early 1960s,
English for Specific Purposes (ESP) has grown asone of the most prominent areas of EFL
teaching today. Its development isreflected in the increasing number of universities
offering an MA in ESP and thenumber of ESP courses offered overseas students in
English speakingcountries. There is now a well-established international journal
dedicated toESP discussion, English for Specific Purposes: An international journal,
andthe ESP SIG groups of the IATEL and TESOL are always active at their
nationalconferences. In Japan, for instance, the ESP movement has shown a slow
butdefinite growth over the past few years. In particular, increased interest hasbeen
spurred as a result of the Mombushos decision in 1994 to largely handover control of
university curriculums to the universities themselves. This hasled to a rapid growth in
English courses. In the Philippines, ESP had been a controversial issue particularly in
theeighties. Lucero (1984) in Carreon (1992) reported that some of the
problemsassociated with ESP theory stemmed mainly from confusion and
disagreement 38
39. 39. over the definition of English for Specific Purposes: What is ESPis it anapproach, a
method, or a theory? Is it the teaching of technical and scientificlanguage? Are its aims
purely utilitarian? How specific is itare the studentstaught English only for the
performance of engineering? How much knowledgeof, say, engineering should the ESP
teacher have? Why cant the ESP teacherconfine herself to the teaching of language
instead of venturing into thediscipline of science and technology? In her report, Carreon
(1992), roughly classified the definitions and viewsabout ESP as register analysis, ESP as
a rhetorical or discourse approach, ESPas a communicative approach, and ESP as target
situation analysis. She further argued that those who viewed ESP in terms of
registeranalysis focused on the teaching of the grammatical and lexical features

ofscientific and technical language. Lacking the sophisticated background forlinguistic

analysis, however may have interpreted this mainly as teachinggrammar using technical
or scientific subject matter; others interpret it asteaching the vocabulary items their
students encounter in their engineering ofbiology class. Now, those who defined ESP in
terms of the rhetorical approach, Carreon(1992) explained that these advocates
acknowledged the importance of teachingFilipino students to view language in the
context of discourse units and 39
40. 40. situations. Lessons focus on the teaching of rhetorical forms acknowledgedbeing the
most commonly used in science, technology, and business. Inaddition to textual features,
the more enlightened view of this approach stressesthe importance of teaching second
language learners the organization andlogical process underlying particular discourse
forms. It, however, has placed arather heavy emphasis on production and the completion
of whole tasks ortexts. As a result, ESP has been viewed as mainly task-oriented and
product-oriented. On the other hand, ESPs association with the communicative
approachhad resulted in creative and lively English classes. This is one feature of ESPthat
has been well-received by Filipino language teachers. In fact, some of themaccording to
Carreon (1992) tend to think that the two approaches are one andthe same. Unfortunately,
the focus on the use of language for communicationhad also become associated with the
notion of de-emphasizing grammar of withteaching grammar incidentally. Many
teachers who have known no otherapproach to language teaching than the grammatical
and structural often usethis last point as an argument against ESP. Their assumption in
this case isthat linguistic competence or the knowledge of rules and correct
linguisticforms necessarily precedes language use. So that those who may accept
ESPin principle and accept the communicative approach in principle do so
onlyas far as they apply to Filipino student who are already fairly proficient in theEnglish
language. For students who can barely express themselves in English,many of those
teachers diagnosed that what they need is more practice ingrammar, not ESP. 40
41. 41. Finally, Carreon (1992) recommended that there is a great need for needsanalysis.
According to her, there is much argument, however, regarding whoseneeds are to be
investigated, how the analysis is to be conducted; what modelshould be used; and how
the results ought to be used. More interesting is howthe interpretation of target
situation and authenticity has sometimesfollowed the extreme case of using whole
texts lifted directly from textbooks,professional books, and journals without
consideration for factors such asintended audience, level of difficulty, potential for
creative language lessons. Carreon (1992) concluded in her report that to a non-restricting
view ofESP and the integration of educational goals in ESP program, the acquisition ofa
solid background in basic linguistics and the principles and practices ofsecond language
learning and teaching appears to be the key to a betterunderstanding of ESP and
consequently, it is hope, to more effective ESPteaching. Another program model related
to CBI is the sheltered subject matterteaching. Crandall (2006) in Brinton, Snow &
Wesche, 1989 describes that thisapproach involves adapting the language of texts or tasks
and use of certainmethods familiar to language teachers (demonstrations, visuals,
graphicorganizers, or cooperative work) to make instruction more accessible to studentsof
different English proficiency levels. This type of instruction is also called 41

42. 42. sheltered English or language sensitive content instruction and is given by theregular
classroom or content teacher, or by a language teacher with specialexpertise in another
academic area. On the other hand, in a sheltered instruction, a content curriculum
isadapted to accommodate students limited proficiency in the language ofinstruction.
This model was originally developed for elementary foreignlanguage immersion
programs to enable some portion of the curriculum to betaught through the foreign
language (Geneseee, 1987 in Crandall 2006). It iscommonly used in immersion and twoway bilingual programs (Met, 1991) andhas been adapted for use in second language
programs with large numbers oflimited English proficient students or intermediate or
advanced Englishproficiency. This model links a specific language learning course with a
contentcourse in which both second language learners and native English speakers
areenrolled (Crandall, 2006). The courses share a content base, but the focus ofinstruction
differs. The language teacher emphasizes language skills, such asacademic or writing,
while the content teacher focuses on traditional academicconcepts. This model requires
substantial coordination between the languageand content teacher; usually the ESL
teacher makes the extra effort ofbecoming familiar with the content. An adjunct program
is usually limited tocases where student shave language skills that are sufficiently
advance to 42
43. 43. enable them to participate in content instruction with English speakingstudents.
Margueritte Ann Snow, professor at California State University & DonnaM. Brinton,
Academic Coordinator of EFL Service Courses and lecturer in theDepartment of Applied
Linguistics & TESOL at the University of California inCATESOL News 1986 defined
adjunct model of language instruction as a cross-curricular instructional program
designed to meet the linguistic and academicneeds of university students. In this model,
students are enrolled concurrentlyin two linked coursesa language course (e.g.
Intermediate ESL) and a contentcourse (e.g., Introductory Psychology). The rationale
underlying the model isthat the two courses share a content base and complement each
other in termsof mutually-coordinated assignments (Wesche , 1985 in Snow & Brinton,
1986).An important feature of the model is the integration of nonnative speakers
withnative speakers in the content course to insure the authenticity of the
academicdemands placed upon the students. Equally important, however, is
thesheltering of non-native speakers in the ESL component in the model. In thisway,
the particular language needs of second language learners, such aspersistent grammar and
writing error patterns, can be addressed directly. They further explained that the adjunct
model of language instructionprovides an ideal framework for an English for academic
purpose setting. Withthe focus in the language class on essential modes of academic
writing,academic reading, study skill development, and treatment of persistent 43
44. 44. structural errors, students are being prepared to transfer these skills to theircontent
courses. The activities of the content-based language class are gearedto stimulate students
to think and learn in the target language by requiringthem to synthesize information from
the content-area lectures and readings.These materials provide content for students to
discuss and write about, thusproviding and authentic context for integrating the four
traditional languageskills. An underlying pedagogical assumption of this framework is
that studentmotivation in the language class will increase in direct proportion o

therelevance of its activities, and, in turn, student success in this content coursewill
reflect the carefully coordinated efforts of this team approach.Furthermore, the adjunct
model offers ESL students a critical, but oftenneglected, option. It gives them access to
native speaker interaction and theauthentic, unsimplified language of academic test and
lectures in the contentcourse, yet enables them to benefit from ESL instruction where
their particularlanguage needs can be met. According to Crandall, (2006) there are a
variety of strategies andtechniques used in content-centered second language instruction.
Here, thediscussion will be limited only to three types of strategiescooperative
learningand other grouping strategies, task-based or experiential learning, and
graphicorganizersthat increase attention to academic language learning, contributeto
content learning, and encourage development of thinking and study skills. 44
45. 45. In cooperative learning, students of different linguistic and educationalbackgrounds
and different skill levels work together on a common task for acommon goal in either the
language or the content classroom. Cooperativegroups encourage students to
communicate, to share insights, test hypotheses,and jointly construct knowledge.
Depending on their language proficiency,students can be assigned various roles as
facilitator, recorder, reporter, orillustrator. Other grouping strategies involve peer tutoring
or pairing a secondlanguage learner with a more English-proficient peer. While in the
task-based or experiential learning method, appropriatecontexts are provided for
developing thinking and study skills as well aslanguage and academic concepts for
students of different levels of languageproficiency. Students learn by carrying out specific
tasks or projects: Forexample, doing science and not just reading about it.
(Roseberry, Warren, &Conant, 1992 in Crandall, 2006). Villamin, Salazar, Bala & Suga
(1994), suggested five steps used inconstructing a graphic organizer as follows: Identify
the major objectives and concepts to be taught; Summarize the key concepts in the form
of a diagram or a table; Have the students explain the graphic organizer. Ask them to
discussthe relationship among its parts. Have them provide some more examples; 45
46. 46. Have them use graphic organizers in surveying text. Present anincomplete diagram
then ask the students to complete it by recalling or locatingappropriate terms and
concepts; and Give more examples for practice until the students learn to make
graphicorganizers, which will aid them in making simple outlines. This part tries to
present the surveys and reviews of related researchesand studies, which have been
conducted about the use of content-basedapproach to language teaching and learning. The
journal articles as well as e-zines were reviewed in order to support of its pedagogical
implications bothlocally and across the globe. Peter Master (1991), an associate professor
in the Department ofLinguistics and Language Development at San Jose State University
in SanJose, California made a report about experimental content-based adjunctprogram.
The study, which was created by The English Institute at CaadaCollege in California,
was primarily for resident ESL students. The contentareas included the social sciences,
western civilization, the natural and physicalsciences, and mathematics, each of which
had an adjunct ESL component. Thestudents were initially required to take the whole
series of courses, including acollege study skills class, and a counselor worked with the
students to helpwith personal problem during the program. 46

47. 47. The apparent success of this pilot program speaks to the effectiveness ofboth contentbased instruction and the adjunct (or team teaching) model. Italso demonstrates how the
principles of EAP (English for Academic Purposes)instruction are perfectly reflected in
the content-based approach, which relieson needs analysis, (student, institutional, and
professional), authenticmaterials, and the communicative approach to language teaching
in addressingthe language needs of nonnative-English-speaking students in
publiceducation. Pally Marcias (in ERIC, March 1999) paper entitle Sustained
Content-Based Teaching for Academic Skills Development in ESL/EFL discusses
therationale for using content-based instruction (CBI) to teach English foracademic
purposes to non-native speakers, drawing on recent research andtheory and on both
personal experience and s small-scale study of collegestudents. Discussion begins with a
look at college and graduates studentsneeds for both language skills and skills in
argumentation, particularly in theconventions of Anglo-American rhetoric. Topics
addressed here include,political, and psychosocial questions about English hegemony and
the questionof who should learn these rhetorical conventions. Literature on sustained
CBIis then reviewed, offering support for it from experience with studentfrustration,
research on its effectiveness, and interviews with students who hadstudied English in
sustained CBI classes. 47
48. 48. Loreta Kaspers New Technologies, New Literacies: Focus DisciplineResearch and
ESL Learning Communities on Language Learning & Technology(Sept. 2000) describes
a study of a content-based instructional model thatengages high intermediate English-as
a-Second Language students insustained content study within collaborative learning
communities and usesinformation technology resources to hone linguistic, academic,
socioaffective,and metacognitive skills through an activity called focus discipline. In
Forum, Oct-Dec 1997, Into, Through, and Beyond: A Framework toDevelop ContentBased Material, Donna M. Brinton & Christine Holten sdescribed a lesson planning
framework that content-based instruction teacherscan adapt to their instructional
materials, student populations, and classroomsettings. Applying the framework to an
authentic reading passage, the samplelesson illustrates how teachers can develop
activities that supplement thecontent, increase student access to and comprehension of
core materials, andfoster students linguistic skills. Fredricka Stoller in Forum (Oct-Dec
1997) provides a rationale forcontent-based instruction and demonstration how project
can be integratedinto content-based English-as-a-Second-Language classrooms. In her
article,Project Work: A Means to Promote Language Content, she outlined the
primarycharacteristics of project work, introduced project work in its
variousconfigurations, and presents practical guidelines for sequencing and developinga
project. 48
49. 49. Jodi Crandall, in her ESL Magazine (July-Aug 1998) discusses the new,expanded role
of elementary English-as-a-Second Language (ESL) teachers,focusing on content-based
language instruction in elementary ESL andexamining the challenges of content-based
language instruction for elementaryESL (e.g. scarcity of good materials, and limited class
time). Her article TheExpanding Role of the Elementary ESL Teacher: Doing More
than TeachingLanguage described how to develop two sidebars thematic units and
present asimple thematic unit. Wood Richard in ADFL Bulletin (Win 1999) suggested in

his article, TheImperative of Integrating Language Instruction with Instruction in Other

Fields,that, in order to prepare college students for the global marketplace,
languagelearning must be more fully integrated with the liberal arts. This
meansrethinking the relationship between language competency and the study
oflanguages and literature. Literature in the target language should be studied atthe
advanced level, because this offers students a chance to learn the subtletiesof the
language. Trends and Issues in Content-Based Instruction by Marguirette AnnSnow
in Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (1998) contains a review ofliterature on
content-based second-language instruction, in both English andother second languages,
describes the impact of content-based instruction on 49
50. 50. instructional, assessment, and teacher-training practices and examines its roleas a
setting for research and methodological innovation. It concludes with adiscussion of
ongoing challenges. The Philippine Normal University houses several studies related
tocontent-based instruction. It is interesting to note that these are but recentstudies. This
is not doubt since the approach was only introduced to Philippinelanguage teaching
context just a decade ago. The researcher surveyed twelve(12) related studies from 1995
to 2005. Tequillo (1995) identified in her prototype ESP-based lessons thelanguage
functions in science and mathematics needed by teacher educationstudents. To determine
the scope of the lesson, she developed her own needsanalysis through Survey
Questionnaire. Cortez (2002) used contents from Science/Nutrition and
Dietetics,Mathematics, Psychology, Education, Research, Tourism and Values
Education.In developing her materials, she made use of authentic materials taken
fromnewspapers, magazines, brochures, journals, and Internet downloads in whichshe
claimed as illustrative of single-text, multi-text, and whole chapterstrategies. 50
51. 51. Estacio (2002) reported in her ESP-Based Instructional Materialsrevealed that, fourth
year high school students need to learn the correct form ofthe following grammatical
structures: subject-verb agreement, verb tenses, andverb forms, transitional devices,
prepositions, articles, modals, fragments andadverbs. She further concluded that students
need to understand how Englishoperates in science and technology, and learn the
language uses, structure andform. She also hypothesized that since the ESP instructional
materials adaptapproach different from the traditional grammatical approach, the
studentsmay encounter difficulty in using them without the teachers guidance. Calica
(2003) found out that students are weak in the construction ofsentences using phrases and
clauses as modifiers; using connectives andtransition expressions; and using the verb
tense forms. She also discoveredthat paramedic practicum in particular failed to learn
well the use of clausesand phrases as modifiers in the sentence; correct use of adjectives,
connectives;and construction of imperative sentences and prohibitions. The
researchersuggested that language teachers integrate need analysis into the lesson plan
inorder to draw up a profile of communication needs and to validate specificallythe skills
and linguistic forms to be taught. She further commented thattextbook writers and
designers of instructional materials should identify theneeds of the specific group of
learners and the educational and curriculumsetting into which the teaching of English
must fit. She suggested too thatcourse designers should make course decisions based on
the interpretation oflanguage needs analysis in order to conceptualize and organize the

content ofevery language program in an institution. School administrators should make

51
52. 52. information about the learners current state, and preferences and their desiredgoal to
identify the present language situation in view of the future languageneeds. Finally, she
reported that students themselves should be made to reflecton their learning, to identify
their needs and to gain more sense of ownershipand control of their learning through
dialogue between them and the teachersand among themselves. Villalva (2004) in his
study of integration of content and languageactivities to fourth year high school students,
he utilized Hutchinsons & Waters Materials Design Model in analyzing the existing
needs and difficulties of theEnglish teachers on having an integrated lesson based on the
interviewsconducted and observation of classes. Valerio, Magahas & Milan (2004)
reported on their study that thestudents had little difficulty in answering the items about
readingcomprehension and vocabulary in a science-based reading text. In other
wordsstudents can understand a reading test using science as content material. Intheir
content-based language test for high school English, the researchersfurther discovered
that the students experienced difficulty in answering theproofreading test and cloze test
because these tests are seldom given to them.They plainly suggested that in giving cloze
test, there should be no deletions onthe first few sentences of the first paragraph in order
to prepare the student forlanguage and reading proficiency. Lastly, the letter of the deleted
word shouldbe given so that the student can have an idea on what its all about. 52
53. 53. Ramos (2004) offered that in preparing instructional materials inteaching English to a
certain group of students, the teacher must take intoconsideration the following variables:
nature, needs, problems and courseconcentration of the students. This study is of great
help to ministerialstudents in preparing them for the vocatione.g. preaching, leading,
arguing,counseling, teaching, explaining, among others. He used the activities inEnglish
which are for ministerial studentsministerial-based. The contents(e.g. grammar
exercises, vocabulary and reading comprehension) of the materialare mostly taken from
the Holy Bible. Cunanan (2004) in his Content-Based Prototype Lesson Plans for
FourthYear High School Students used varied authentic text type from the contentareas in
teaching English. The selection and design of the lesson plan wasbased on the
observations of English classes, interview of teachers,interpretation of answers to the
questionnaires given to teachers regarding theirclassroom practices especially in the use
of content-based materials in Englishlanguage teaching, and the analysis of the PSSLC
(Philippine SecondarySchools Learning Competencies) which was the basis for the
objectives. Hesupports the experts viewpoint that the use of integrated approach to
Englishlanguage teaching provides for the development of listening, speaking,
reading,writing, and grammar skills. ESL teachers according to him should be welloriented to the field of their target users. They also need to collaborate withcontent area
teachers for better planning of their teaching. Similar to Cortez 53
54. 54. (2002), the researcher also authentic materials ranging from recipes, medicinelabels,
brochures, processes, diary entries, journals, biographies,documentaries, news reports,
etc.; all of which were taken from the contentareas and purposely for a more extensive
type of listening, speaking, readingand writing skills typically required in content

disciplines. To date, the most recent study which have been conducted by PNU
ESLresearchersContent-Based Supplementary Vocabulary Instructional Materialsfor
Freshmen Business Students (Bernardo, 2005) presents a collaborative workbetween the
researcher and the mathematics professors. He designed his PeerValidation Questionnaire
as to the evaluation of his instructional materials.Part Two: On the Teaching and Testing
of Grammar This part reviews the different operational and conceptual definitions
ofgrammar given by various experts in language teaching. The researcher alsotries to
present various literatures on the linguistic foundations of grammar, itsnature and types.
This section also discusses issues and problems in theteaching and testing of grammar,
likeShould we teach grammar in school?;What should include in the study of English
grammar in college?; What type ofgrammar should be taught in college?; What method
or approach best fits in theteaching of grammar?; How should grammar test look like?
These, and a lotmore shall be the major concern in the discussion. Aside from the
localunpublished studies about developing instructional materials on grammar,
theresearcher also cited the works of Larsen-Freeman--Celce-Murcia (1998),
RobBatstone (1996) for the pedagogical approaches, and John Heaton (1998) and 54
55. 55. Arthur Hughes (1996) for testing procedures and techniques. The researcheralso
surveyed six different locally authored textbooks used in the teaching ofgrammar in
collegeparticularly to freshmen students. Furthermore, the review posits three essential
points of analysis: thecontent, the approach used, and the inputs.A. On the definitions,
nature, and theoretical foundations of grammar Language experts define grammar in
several different ways. To sum,grammar is the study of language which deals with the
forms and structure ofwords and with their customary arrangement in phrases and
sentences or thesystem of rules in speaking and writing a given language. The Oxford
American Dictionary in Ayoob (2006) defines grammar as:the study of words and the
rule for their formation and their relationships toeach other in sentences; the rules
themselves; speech or writing judged as goodor bad according to these rules Why
grammar? There is distinctly familiar about grammar. Linguistshave been studying it for
centuries, and it remains an object of learning forcountless schoolchildren across the
globe; To quote, Batstone (1994): It is anintegral part of the language we use in
everyday communication. Although weare probably not conscious of grammar in our
own language use, as languageteachers, we can hardly fail to be aware of its influence.
Grammar is a majorinfluence in syllabus design, the focal point of many classroom
exercises, and thekey behind that familiar student query: Please, what is the rule here?
55
56. 56. Moreover, Batstone (1994) claimed that language without grammar wouldcertainly
leave us seriously handicapped. He clarified that language is notrandom, but orderly. He
explained that grammar is not a single, homogenousobject but immensely broad and
diverse phenomenon. He even identified whathe called perspectives on grammar, which
he believed important for languageteaching; hence grammar as a product and a process.
According to him, aproduct perspective on grammar probably the most familiar to the
majority ofteachers. The emphasis is on the component parts of the language
system,divided up into separate forms. Each form is the product of the
grammariansanalysis, and this product perspective on grammar can be of great value

toteachers and learners. By focusing on particular grammatical forms and theirassociated

meanings, teachers can help learners to develop their knowledge ofthe grammatical
system, and the meanings, which it helps to signal. On the other hand, Batstone argued
that this process is only one side ofthe coin, because grammar is also a key element in the
process of language use.Grammar as process, is likewise thinking of the myriad ways in
which it isdeployed from moment to moment in communication. Sysoyev in the Internet
TESL Journal addresses the issue of L2 grammarteaching to ESL students with focus on
form and meaning. A method ofintegrative grammar teaching, consisting of three major
stages (a) exploration, 56
57. 57. (b) explanation, and (c) expression (EEE), is proposed. To illustrate how each ofthese
stages function, several experimental lessons were conducted. The paperdescribes and
discusses the lessons themselves, their rationale, and theirimplementation of the proposed
method. An evaluative questionnaireconducted after experimental lessons, shows that
students preferred to learn L2grammar using the EEE method, as opposed to form-based
or meaning basedonly approaches. As a possible solution, integrative grammar teaching
combines form-based with a meaning-based focus. Spada and Lightbrown (1993) have
alsoargued that form focused instruction and corrective feedback provided withinthe
context of communicative interaction can contribute positively to secondlanguage
development in both the short and long term. Thus, integration ofform and meaning is
becoming increasingly important in current research.Celce-Murcia, Dornyei and Thurell
(1997) call it a turning point incommunicative language teaching, in which explicit,
direct elements aregaining significance in teaching communicative abilities and
skills.Kumaravadivelu call s this a principled communicative approach (cited
byCelce-Murcia, Dornyei and Thurell, 1997). Of course, depending on theirstudents with
different needs in the same group, or having various needs in theclassroom. Musumeci
(1997) mentions the idea of connecting form andmeaning in grammar teaching as a
developoing trend in reference to theproficiency oriented curriculum. She points out that
students should be able tolearn explicit grammar rules as well as have a chance to
practice them incommunication in the authentic or simulation tasks. Interestingly,
Musumeci 57
58. 58. advocates giving students a chance to look at the language on a sentence levelto see
how certain grammatical rules are applied. According to Appel, and Lantolf (1994) and
Lantolf and Pavlenko (1995),the role of the mediator in teaching an L2 is placed heavily
on an L2 teacher,whose task is to direct students in the right direction. What principle
then supports the acquisition of grammar? According toresearch, children by the age of
five or six are usually fluent in their language.They use it confidently without knowing
the names of the parts and structuresthey speak. They are users of Hartwells Grammar 1.
By the time childrenreach school age, they are competent in the use of all five basic
sentencepatterns (Hunts 1995 in Patterson 2006). They are able to use negatives,passives,
ellipses, and imperatives, (Gillet & Temple 1984 in Patterson 2006)and they can use
present, past, and future tenses (Loban 1976 in Patterson2006). These grammatical
concepts are first learned through oral speech,through the immersion process that allows
children to develop language. Butone of the traditional elements of a language arts
program is isolated grammarinstruction. English teachers have traditionally placed great

faith in the directbenefits of separate grammar instruction. Specifically, they often

teachgrammar in isolation from writing. The skills approach to literacy has itsfoundation
in behaviorist theory, which assumes that literacy is acquired 58
59. 59. through direct separate skills instruction. These skills would then becomeintegrated
through practice. Atwell 1987, Meyer 1990 in Patterson 2006 reported that some teacherresearchers found that grammar instruction can be far more effective if it isincorporated
into student-writing instruction. Martha Kolln in Patterson 2006 stressed that students
need to beconsciously aware of their own grammatical knowledge and that this can
bedone through studying structures and labeling them. Meckel, on the otherhand,
concluded that not enough time had been devoted to teaching grammar.Meckel pointed
out that the formal study of grammar does not have to beisolated from student writing.
(Weaver 1996). Kolln, however, points out thatflaws in the studies that advocate the deemphasis of Prescriptive Grammarinstruction indicate that grammar should be taught.
Her contention thatgrammar as application is interesting, but her belief that this is
provedthrough pointing out flaws in previous studies is contestable. Rei Noguchi in
Patterson is another newer voice that is asking teachersto think critically about the role of
grammar in the classroom. His bookGrammar and the Teaching of Writing (1991)
suggests that teachers limit theuse of grammatical terminology to those elements or
features that are necessaryin helping students create fewer errors in their writing and to
write moreeffective sentences. Noguchi is one of the newer voices who believes students
59
60. 60. must formulate their own operational descriptions of how language functions.This is a
move away from the cult of correctness and recognition that studentsalready have a vast
knowledge of Grammar 1, even though they may not be ableto articulate it. Noguchi is
attempting to lead teachers toward more DescriptiveGrammars that recognize the
linguistic abilities of students. Noguchi, however,acknowledges that power structures
within the culture demand a level ofcorrectness in writers and suggests that teachers
focus on the most commonerrors in student writing and those errors that seem to
most concern thosewho wield power in corporate, academic, and political arenas.
According to Weaver, these are essentially errors in subject/verbagreement, and the
failure to recognize subordinate clauses and phrases asincomplete sentences. Weaver also
adds the misuses of commas in certainsituations, such as introductory phrases and the
lack of commas with the useof appositives and interrupters. Patterson quoted both Susan
Hunter and Ray Wallace for teachers torethink the role of grammar in the English
classroom. They admit that toogreat a focus on School or Traditional Grammars is not the
answer, but theyadd that this is not the only approach to grammar. Wallace believes the
issuehas been skirted for too long, especially among college composition teachers,and
that these teachers need to find ways in which to reconnect grammar andwriting. What
should teachers know? Patterson suggests that in order tounderstand the complexity of
the grammar issue, teachers need to have some 60
61. 61. understanding of the language acquisition process. And they need tounderstand that
children enter the classroom with thorough grounding in theinternalized system of rules
of their language. They already know Grammar 1.Teachers should also understand that,

barring some cognitive impairment;native speakers use good grammar, even though
the language they speak maynot be standard English. They should also understand
the problems inthinking of grammars as a remedy for supposed inadequacies in
studentswriting and spoken language. Bell Hooks (1994) in Patterson 2006 eloquently
points out a fewproblems with the notion of teaching grammar. In essence she asks
whosegrammar are we teaching? If the goal of grammar teaching (whether within
thecontext of writing or not) is to help students speak and write the language ofpower, we
must ask ourselves if this is a noble goal. And by assuming thatthere IS a language of
power, and that those who master it have a better chanceof being successful, what are
we saying about those who do not, or will not,speak that language? It is but interesting to
note in this paper the role of functional grammar,in which this study used. Functional
grammar is the name given to any of arange of functionally-based approaches to the
scientific study of language, suchas the grammar model developed by Simon Dik or
Michael Hallidays Systemicfunctional grammar; another important figure in recent
linguistic functionalismis Talmy Givon. 61
62. 62. According to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, in the functional paradigma language
is in the first place conceptualized as an instrument of socialinteraction among human
beings, used with the intention of establishingcommunicative relationships. Within this
paradigm one attempt to reveal theinstrumentality of language with respect to what
people do and achieve with itin a social interaction. A natural language, in other words, is
seen as anintegrated part of the communicative competence of the natural language user.
Because of its emphasis on usage, communicative function, and thesocial context of
language, functional grammar differs significantly from otherlinguistic theories, which
stress purely formal approaches to grammar, forinstance Chomskyan generative grammar.
In the The Grammar Book (Second Edition), Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman
(1999) identified two approaches to teaching language. One is focusedprimarily on
language use, while the other is on language forms or analysis.They clearly discussed
what most language experts have been arguing over theyears now. However, they
reported that the controversy did not entirely find aconcrete resolution. For, according to
them, there is evidence to support bothpoints of view. They further explained that it is no
uncommon to find learnerswho, for whatever reason, find themselves in a new country or
a new region oftheir own country, who need to learn a new language, and who do so
withoutthe benefit of formal instruction. They claimed also that learners
languagedevelopment may become arrested in an immersion environment, once
theircommunicative needs have been met. 62
Recommended