5
Presentation Notes: Content-based vs. Language-based (Discrete-Skills)
English Teaching in Japanese Universities: Is There Really a Difference?[1]
Melvin R. Andrade
Sophia Junior College &
Aoyama Gakuin University
Abstract
Many EFL programs at the university level in Japan are beginning to shift from language-based to content-based curriculums. Accordingly, courses in these programs require an integrated rather that a discrete skill approach. That is, learners “use” English to learn about a topic, make presentations, write reports, and debate related issues rather than “learn” reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills. The rationale is that the students will “learn English through content” as a result of “leaning content through English.” The distinction is similar to the contrast between “project-based” language learning, in which language is learned incidentally as students engage in projects such as producing a play or radio program, on the one hand, and “task-based” language learning, in which fun and interesting activities are designed as vehicles to achieve specific language leaning goals. This presentation will explore the distinction between “learning English through content” versus “learning content through English,” and in doing so will address questions such as these: “Isn’t a reading course really a content course?” “Aren’t content-based courses and theme-based courses really the same thing?” “Is a content course taught by a language teacher the same as a content course taught by a content specialist?” “How can I teach language through content?” To answer these questions, the presenter will briefly review the key research on content-based learning teaching and illustrate them with examples from case studies of several colleges and universities in Japan. Both the advantages and the disadvantages of content-based language teaching will be considered.
Definitions (From CARLA-CoBaLTT)
1. CBI is "...the integration of particular content with language teaching aims...the concurrent teaching of academic subject matter and second language skills" (Brinton et al., 1989, p. 2).
2. CBI approaches "...view the target language largely as the vehicle through which subject matter content is learned rather than as the immediate object of study" (Brinton et al., 1989, p. 5).
3. CBI is aimed at 'the development of use-oriented second and foreign language skills' and is 'distinguished by the concurrent learning of a specific content and related language use skills' (Wesche, 1993).
4. CBI is "...an approach to language instruction that integrates the presentation of topics or tasks from subject matter classes (e.g., math, social studies) within the context of teaching a second or foreign language" (Crandall & Tucker, 1990, p. 187).
What qualifies as “content” in CBI? (From CARLA-CoBaLTT)
1. Curtain and Pesola (1994) limit the definition of CBI to those "...curriculum concepts being taught through the foreign language ... appropriate to the grade level of the students..." (p. 35).
2. Genesee (1994) suggests that content '...need not be academic; it can include any topic, theme, or non-language issue of interest or importance to the learners' (p. 3).
3. Met (1991) proposes that "... 'content' in content-based programs represents material that is cognitively engaging and demanding for the learner, and is material that extends beyond the target language or target culture" (p. 150).
4. "...what we teach in any kind of content-based course is not the content itself but some form of the discourse of that content—not, for example, 'literature' itself (which can only be experienced) but how to analyze literature...for every body of content that we recognize as such—like the physical world or human cultural behavior—there is a discourse community—like physics or anthropology—which provides us with the means to analyze, talk about, and write about that content...Thus, for teachers the problem is how to acculturate students to the relevant discourse communities, and for students the problem is how to become acculturated to those communities" (Eskey, 1997, pp. 139-140).
______
Learning Language Skills in CBLT: Explicit or Non-explicit?
One of the great advantages of a content-based syllabus is that it frees the teacher from having to follow any one method of language instruction. Explicit language teaching can be done on an ad hoc basis in the most appropriate way whether it is communicative language teaching or some structural approach. Students can be given tips for learning that may include habit formation such as memorizing lists of words and phrases to more cognitive methods such as contextualizing language items. (Messerklinger, 2003, p. 124)
Lessons with a focus on meaning are purely communicative (in theory, at least). Learners are presented with gestalt, comprehensible samples of communicative L2 use, e.g., in the form of content-based lessons in sheltered subject-matter or immersion classrooms, lessons that are often interesting, relevant, and relatively successful . . . Grammar is considered to be best learned incidentally and implicitly . . . (Long, 1997, Option 2, paragraph 2)
It has been our experience as teacher educators that the more specific teachers can be about the objectives they have for a lesson, the better able they are to integrate language and content instruction in the lesson in meaningful ways . . . Language objectives refer to linguistic concepts, including vocabulary, communicative functions, and grammatical structures. In CBI, language objectives should be divided into two categories —content-obligatory language objectives and content- compatible language objectives . . . Content-obligatory language objectives reflect language that is essential for understanding and talking about the content. Content-compatible language objectives emerge directly from the foreign language curriculum. (CARLA, 2006)
______
Issues and Myths
1. Course contents vs. teaching methodology ("content-based teaching is student research, summary
writing, discussions, debate, and presentations", etc). Is that true?
2. Content-based teaching vs. theme-based teaching (Are they the same?)
3. Teaching contents (facts, concepts, terminology, etc.) vs. teaching language through contents (accuracy,
fluency, complexity). Are these the same or different?
4. Project-based teaching vs. task-based teaching (Can-Do) vs. content-based teaching. (CBI includes these, right? No?)
5. Content-based teaching vs. integrated skills teaching. (Is content teaching necessarily four skills?)
6. The strengths of content-based teaching vs. its weaknesses (Yes, there are weaknesses.)
7. Controlled teaching vs. Coordinated teaching vs. Autonomous teaching.
Date: Tue Mar 20 2001, 8:29 AM JST
To:
Subject: Re: Teaching the skills discretely
1. I teach in a program that has discrete classes for 4 skills. Actually, the daytime session of the program (mostly the same teachers, and all the same student body) uses a combined skills approach, while the evening program (in which I teach) uses the discrete skills approach. It might interest folks to hear that in our program the evening students (4 skills) always do much better on common tests and the TOEFL than the daytime students (integrated program) do. This is not what I expected, I admit, but that's the way it is.
I have always been a whole-language believer and I guess I still am for perfect teaching circumstances. However, in the "real" world, I am in favor of teaching skills discretely, at least for our program. Here's why:
1. Many students find themselves in situations where they are able to make big leaps of progress in one skill - usually in speaking - because they get a job or fall in love with a native speaker or both of these. When a student is way ahead in one skill, I don't think that it makes sense not to promote them to an appropriate level in that skill. In whole language groupings, you can't promote students in only one skill.
2. As John Harbord pointed out, there are many students who seem to feel that language is composed of only ONE skill - grammar. Teaching the skills as independent parts of a whole brings home to them that there is life in language beyond grammar.
3. If a student is really, really weak in one skill - often writing - it is possible to promote the student for the other skills classes and repeat them in the skill in which they are weak. This is much more humane than having a student repeat all four skills classes at a certain level because he is weak in one or two of those skills.
4. As a teacher, I find it more interesting and challenging to teach four discrete skills with 4 separate groups. I sort of "revive" at the beginning of each skill class. I would really like to have an integrated reading-writing class, but I find that I get around that lack by having my reading students write and my writing students read!
All in all, I think that 4-skills programs work really well, at least in the circumstances that I have experienced. As a matter of fact, the reason that I teach at night is because I want to teach the 4-skills program, and our school doesn't offer that option during the day.
From: Thomas Robb, Kyoto Sangyo University, Japan
Date: Tue Mar 20 2001, 9:30 AM JST
To:
Subject: Re: Teaching the skills discretely
My school just changed from a discrete approach to an integrated one and are very happy with the results of our new curriculum. Our previous program had one time/week 90-minute classes in 6 discrete areas: Intensive Reading, Extensive Reading, Grammar, Writing, Speaking and Listening/ Pronunciation. Many people praised our program as being forward-looking, but in fact, each of the skill areas was left to a separate instructor. There was no coordination between them and the students sometimes felt inundated with so many classes to juggle.
We now have two sets of three 90-minute classes per week. The "Skills" module uses New Interchange, Book 2 along with the audio & video programs, as well as the CD-ROM. One teacher teaches them twice a week and another, one of our full-time staffers, once a week. They coordinate closely, one picking up where the other left off.
The other 3x/week module is a 'Content Course'. There are actually FIVE content areas. Each of our 5 groups of students gets one content area for 5-6 weeks, after which the instructors rotate to a different group, so they get 5 content areas during the course of the year. Content areas include Global Issues, English through Music, British Culture, Australian Culture and Japanese/Western comparative culture. (The textbooks have so much U.S. culture in them that we didn't feel a module on that was necessary!)
We found that the students' TOEIC scores improved about twice as much as they had in the past, by an average of 100 points instead of 50, and also discovered that the students felt much more comfortable and were volunteering to speak much more than before. (No mean feat for a class of Japanese students!)
In the Japanese university, where oral English classes normally meet once a week, a thematic unit might run for two or three lessons --long enough to explore the topic but brief enough to guarantee that interest will not flag. Students' interest, and with it motivation, increases in direct proportion to the relevance of the activities presented. (Wachs, 1994)
References (mainly concerning content-based teaching in Japan)
Allison, James, Bokhari, Afshan, Browning, Carol, Gettings, Robert, & Iwasaki-Goodman Masami.
(1995). An exercise in content-based courses at Hokusei Junior College
Journal of Hokusei Gakuen Women's Junior College, 31, 95-118. Retrieved November 24, 2007, from the Ci-Nii database: http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110004466483/
Amelsvroot, Marcel Van. (2004). Building a content-based college course. 27,1-13.
Bulletin of the College of Foreign StudiesYokohama. (Kanagawa Prefectural College of Foreign Studies). Retrieved November 23, 2007, from http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110004689080/en/
August, Gail. (2004). Literature facilitates content-based instruction. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8
(2). Retrieved November 23, 2007, from http://www.rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/nov2707.htm
Bacha, Joel E. (2006). Generating positive and lasting change through language learning:
ESD in second language education. Paper presented at The 10th APEID International Conference Learning Together for Tomorrow: Education for Sustainable Development, 6-8 December 2006, Bangkok (Thailand). 20 pp.
http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/apeid/Conference/papers/bacha_7D_01.doc
Bayne, Kristofer, Usui,Yoshiko, & Watanabe, Atsuko. (2002). “World Englishes”: A multimedia,
content-based course. JACET全国大会要綱 41, 250-251. (The Japan Association of Collage English Teachers (JACET) September 5, 2002.
Bayne, Kristofer, Usui, Yoshiko, & Watanabe, Atsuko. World Englishes and self-images of
Japanese: A summary. Proceedings and Supplement for the 1st Peace as a Global
Language Conference, September 28-29, 2002 Tokyo, Japan. Retrieved November 23, 2007, from http://www.jalt.org/pansig/PGL1/HTML/BayneEtAl1.htm
Balint, Martin. (2004). Content-based instruction in an EAP program: Developing knowledge
of principles and policies of ecotourism. Journal of Policy Studies (Kwansei Gakuin University), 17, 1-8. Retrieved November 23, 2007, from the Ci-Nii database: http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110002963277/en/
Bebenroth, Ralf, & Redfield, Michael Rube. (2004). Do OUE students want content-based instruction?
An experimental study. Osaka Keidai Ronshu, 55 (4), 91-96. Retrieved November 23, 2007, from http://www.bebenroth.eu/Downloads/CententBasedInstrucRube55.04DaiKeiDai.pdf
Boyer, Cheri. (2007). Facilitating integrated-skills projects and assessment. HEIS News (ESL in
Higher Education Interest Section, TESOL), 26(2). Retrieved December 5, 2007, from
http://www.tesol.org//s_tesol/sec_issue.asp?nid=2746&iid=9183&sid=1#91
Boyle, Roisin. (2006). Global Issues as a content-based approach to advanced English
Lingua, 17, 37-62. (Sophia University Center for the Teaching of Foreign Languages in General Education).
Brown, Clara Lee. (2004, February). Content-based ESL curriculum and academic
language proficiency. The Internet TESL Journal, 10 (2), http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Brown-CBEC.html
CARLA (2006). Annotated bibliographies: Content-based instruction. (2006). Center for
Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (Content-Based Language Teaching with
Technology). University of Minnesota. Retrieved November 23, 2007, from
http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/bibs/index.html
CARLA-CoBaLTT.. (2006). Content-based second language instruction: What is it? Center for
Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (Content-Based Language Teaching with
Technology). University of Minnesota. Retrieved November 23, 2007, from http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/index.html
Cotton, Randall (2003). Using movies in a Content-based communication course:
rationalizations and implementations. Gifu City Women’s College, 53, 41-46. Retrieved