NAVES’ GRID OF CONTENT-BASED INSTRUCTION (USA) CLIC (Content and Language Integrated
Classroom ) (Europe) |
||
1. Definition |
“In a content-based approach, students
simultaneously acquire subject matter expertise and greater proficiency in
English, the medium of instruction. Additionally, they learn to master skills
necessary for academic success.” D.
Raphan & J. Moser: 1994 |
|
2. Principles |
According to Brinton et al (1989) 1. Research shows that for successful
language learning to occur, “the language syllabus must take into account the
uses the learner will make of the target language”, which means systematic
focussing on those language forms and functions which will best serve the learner
in his/her future language use. 2. The use of “informational content
which is perceived as relevant by the learner” enhances motivation in
language learning and thus promotes learning effectiveness. 3. Content-based approaches are built
upon the previous experience of the learner, as they “take into account the
learner’s existing knowledge of the subject matter” and use pedagogical
methods which aim at overall development of cognitive and academic skills, as
well as linguistic skills. 4. Content-based approaches provide a
larger framework and “context for language”development, in which focus is not
only on fragmented examples of “correct” language forms, but also on
“interaction and discourse patterns”. 5. SLA (second language acquisition)
research suggests that a necessary condition for successful language learning
is “comprehensible input” which requires focussing on the meaning rather than
the form. The development of good receptive communicative skills is the
foundation on which productive skills are based. |
|
3.Main authors |
- Mohan: 86 - Brinton & Snow: 89 - Marsh: 99 |
|
4.Program Models associated with Content-Based Instruction |
- Whole-language curriculum (Goodman: 1986) - Task-based approach (Long: 1991, Candlin: 1987, Prabhu: 1987) - CALLA (Cognitive Academic Language
Approach) (O’Malley & Chamot: 1987) - Bilingualism - Plurilingualism |
|
5.Objectives |
1. To help students whose limited
English proficiency hinders their academic progress 2. To help subject matter teacher adapt
their teaching methods so that those students with limited English
proficiency may progress adequately. 3. To provide extra exposure to the
foreign language and thus compensate the time constraints on foreign language
programs. |
|
6.Population |
1. Students - LMS (language minority students)
(immigrants) - LEPS (limited English proficiency
students) - Students of a foreign language 2. Teachers - Teachers involved in specialist
programs and at all educational levels |
|
7. Educational Level |
- K-8 (primary education) - secondary education (8-12) - university |
|
8.Methodology: Content-based instruction |
1. The use of techniques and strategies
to facilitate comprehension such as realia, redundancy, use of graphic
organizers, etc. 2. Cognitive abilities and processes
are integrated in the design of the program.
|
|
8. Methodology: Content-based instruction |
3. Teachers monitor students’ progress
and provide immediate feedback 4. Assessment must differentiate
between achievement in language
skills and achievement in the subject matter. 5. Learners are allowed to respond in a
wide variety of ways, from verbal to non-verbal responses. The emphasis is on
development of receptive skills. |
|
9.Advantages |
According to David Marsh: 1997 1. The bringing together of parts of a curricula as parts
of a whole 2. Emphasis on the communicative
function of language 3. A way to support the learning of
less widely used languages 4. A way to increase awareness of the
linguistic diversity of Europe 5. A way to encourage the development
of intellectual skills 6. A way to facilitate trans-regional
and trans-national contact through languages other than a single dominant
lingua franca |
|
10. Difficulties |
1. Teachers 1.1 A lack of training in content-based
instruction 1.2 Collaboration between the language
teacher and the subject matter teacher is imperative 1.3 Language proficiency of the subject
matter teacher and the language teacher 2. Students 2.1 Limited time to achieve adequate
academic level 3. Instructional Materials 3.1 Little material available on the
market 4. Assessment 4.1 How to assess subject matter and
language skills within the educational system
|
|
ÓQuincannon
& Navés Feb. 2000