Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Content-based language learning : an educational journey beyond language training Low, Marylin G. 1989

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1989_A8 L67.pdf [ 4.54MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078271.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078271-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078271-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078271-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078271-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078271-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078271-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078271-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078271.ris

Full Text

CONTENT-BASED LANGUAGE LEARNING: AN EDUCATIONAL JOURNEY BEYOND LANGUAGE TRAINING by MARYLIN G. LOW B.Ed., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, 1974 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Language E d u c a t i o n We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1989 © MARYLIN G. LOW, 1989 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Language Education The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date October 10, 1989  DE-6 (2/88) A b s t r a c t Recent development i n language t e a c h i n g beyond the f u n c t i o n a l approach focusses on content-based language l e a r n i n g . T h i s t h e s i s r e p o r t s on i s s u e s r a i s e d i n the implementation and e v a l u a t i o n of a content-based c u r r i c u l u m designed f o r i n t e r n a t i o n a l students p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a summer E n g l i s h language program. Data f o r e v a l u a t i n g the c u r r i c u l u m i s q u a l i t a t i v e and i n c l u d e s i n f o r m a t i o n from i n t e r v i e w s and q u e s t i o n n a i r e s completed by i n s t r u c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n t e a c h i n g on the program. I n s t r u c t o r s ' concerns of content-based language t e a c h i n g focus p r i m a r i l y on implementing t h i s approach i n the classroom and on the d e s i g n of student t a s k s . Implementation s t r a t e g i e s and p r i o r i t i e s f o r the development of t a s k s i n a content-based c u r r i c u l u m are i d e n t i f i e d . The c o n c l u s i o n d e a l s w i t h i s s u e s i n content-based t e a c h i n g a t the implementation stage and a t the t a s k d e s i g n l e v e l . i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS A b s t r a c t i i T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s i i i L i s t o f F i g u r e s v i L i s t o f T a b l e s v i i Acknowledgement v i i i I . I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 A . The Q u e s t i o n : Is C o n t e n t - B a s e d Language T e a c h i n g an E f f e c t i v e A p p r o a c h f o r ESL C u r r i c u l a ? 1 i . Some Assumpt ions About T e a c h i n g a Second Language 4 B . O b j e c t i v e s o f an ESL Language E d u c a t i o n C u r r i c u l u m 8 i . C o n t e n t - B a s e d Language T e a c h i n g 9 a . The Knowledge Framework 10 C . Some P e d a g o g i c a l I ssues and R a t i o n a l e f o r C o n t e n t - B a s e d ESL C u r r i c u l a 14 i . H i g h e r L e v e l T h i n k i n g and N o n - N a t i v e Speakers 14 i i . M e a n i n f g u l n e s s o f C u r r i c u l u m Content 17 i i i . The R o l e o f C u l t u r e i n Language L e a r n i n g 20 D. Comments 21 I I . Review o f S e l e c t e d L i t e r a t u r e 23 A . I n t r o d u c t i o n 23 B . F i r s t Language R e s e a r c h on Language and C o n t e n t 25 i . Language A c r o s s the C u r r i c u l u m 25 i i . Read ing i n the Content A r e a 27 i v C. Second Language Research on Language and Content 29 i . The French Immersion Connection 29 i i . Language Across the C u r r i c u l u m 31 i i i . C o g n i t i o n and Language 32 D. Frameworks f o r I n t e g r a t i n g Language and Content i n the Classroom 33 i . The Adjunct Model 33 i i . The C o g n i t i v e Academic Language L e a r n i n g Approach (CALLA) 34 i i i . The Knowledge Framework 35 E. Methodology 36 i . The Contact Approach 36 i i . S t r u c t u r e of Student Tasks 37 F. Comments 38 I I I . The Method 40 A. A Q u a l i t a t i v e Approach 40 B. The S u b j e c t s 41 C. The Role of the Researcher 42 D. The Research Design and Procedure 42 i . C u r r i c u l u m Development 43 i i . C u r r i c u l u m Implementation 44 i i i . C u r r i c u l u m E v a l u a t i o n 45 IV. The A n a l y s i s 47 A. The F i n d i n g s 47 i . Task Design and i t s R e l a t i o n s h i p t o Teaching Language 52 a. Vocabulary 52 b. E l i c i t i n g S p e c i f i c Language 54 c. L i n k i n g Content and Language 55 d. Meaningful Tasks 56 e. Task D i f f i c u l t y 58 f . Group Work 59 g. Use of V i s u a l s 61 i i . Other F i n d i n g s 61 V. C o n c l u s i o n 66 A. The Q u e s t i o n : Is Content-Based Language Teaching E f f e c t i v e f o r ESL Programs? 66 i . Summary of F i n d i n g s : I n s t r u c t o r Support ... 66 i i . Summary of Current Research Support 67 B. I m p l i c a t i o n s o f the F i n d i n g s 68 i . I n s t r u c t i o n a l S e t t i n g 69 a. Task Design 69 b. Use of V i s u a l s 73 c. S e q u e n t i a l Language Development 73 C. I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Research 74 D. In C o n c l u s i o n 76 VI. REFERENCES 78 V I I . APPENDIX A - EXAMPLE OF A FLOWCHART 84 APPENDIX B - ACTIVITY: EATING OUT: WHERE SHOULD WE GO? 86 APPENDIX C - ACTIVITY: BUYING SOUVENIRS 88 APPENDIX D - ACTIVITY: EATING IN THE CAFETERIA ... 90 APPENDIX E - QUESTIONNAIRE 92 APPENDIX F - REVISED ACTIVITY: NUTRITIONAL OR JUNK? 97 v i L i s t o f F i g u r e s 1 I n t e g r a t i o n of Language, Content and T h i n k i n g 3 2 T o p i c a l A n a l y s i s Using the Framework 11 3 The SELP C u r r i c u l u m 24 v i i L i s t o f Tables I A p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of C u r r i c u l u m Content 48 I I Successes and D i f f i c u l t i e s o f SELP C u r r i c u l u m f o r I n s t r u c t o r s 50 I I I Successes and D i f f i c u l t i e s o f SELP C u r r i c u l u m f o r Students as P e r c e i v e d by I n s t r u c t o r s 51 IV C u r r i c u l u m Recommendations 64 Acknowledgement Many people have i n f l u e n c e d my understanding o f language and t e a c h i n g but none have i n s p i r e d me as much as Bernard Mohan. H i s i n s i g h t and p a t i e n c e p r o v i d e d me o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o work through complex and c h a l l e n g i n g i d e a s . He has s e t a sta n d a r d o f e x c e l l e n c e i n the f i e l d o f E d u c a t i o n f o r which I w i l l c o n t i n u e t o s t r i v e . R e c o g n i t i o n i s g i v e n t o two o t h e r educators f o r whom I h o l d tremendous r e s p e c t and a d m i r a t i o n : Margaret E a r l y and Ian Andrews. Each, i n t h e i r own way, have g i v e n me the c o n f i d e n c e and perseverance t o i n f l u e n c e o t h e r s i n the area of language and t e a c h i n g . I would a l s o l i k e t o r e c o g n i z e a v e r y s p e c i a l c o l l e a g u e and f r i e n d , Margaret Froese. Without her e n t h u s i a s t i c support, e n d l e s s commitment and v a l u a b l e e x p e r t i s e , t h i s study would never have come t o f r u i t i o n . May we always remain p a r t n e r s i n l e a r n i n g . F i n a l l y , I would l i k e t o thank my f a m i l y : my husband, Doug, my t h r e e sons Dana, Robin and Cody and my p a r e n t s . T h e i r encouragement and understanding made t h i s accomplishment p o s s i b l e . 1 Chapter One CONTENT-BASED LANGUAGE LEARNING: AN EDUCATIONAL JOURNEY BEYOND LANGUAGE TRAINING Many students are educated i n second language environments. F o r years e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s have o f f e r e d s p e c i a l l y designed language c l a s s e s w i t h i n t h i s immersion s e t t i n g . A l though purposes f o r l e a r n i n g a second language v a r i e s from i n d i v i d u a l t o i n d i v i d u a l , the commonality they share i s the d e s i r e t o improve t h e i r a b i l i t y t o use t h e i r a d d i t i o n a l language. O f t e n students p a r t i c i p a t e i n c u r r i c u l a t h a t a re based on assumptions about language t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g t h a t c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h i n second language a c q u i s i t i o n (SLA) now q u e s t i o n s . THE QUESTION: IS CONTENT-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING AN EFFECTIVE APPROACH FOR ESL CURRICULA? Goals of many language program c u r r i c u l a , a v a i l a b l e t o non-native speakers of E n g l i s h , s t a t e t h a t t h e i r aim i s t o improve s t u d e n t s ' w r i t i n g s k i l l s o r t o develop t h e i r c o n v e r s a t i o n a l s k i l l s (Leggett e t a l . , 1978; Y i l d i z , 1980). The format f o l l o w e d i n the classroom i s v e r y much l i k e a t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n where students are asked t o p r a c t i s e speech a c t s and r e p e a t speech p a t t e r n s modelled by the t e a c h e r , use gra m m a t i c a l l y c o r r e c t sentences, conjugate verb tenses and l i s t e n f o r and repe a t s p e c i f i c l e t t e r sounds. O f t e n students must memorize b i t s of language c o n v e r s a t i o n and t r y t o reproduce them i n a p p r o p r i a t e s i m u l a t e d s i t u a t i o n s s e t up by 2 the t e a c h e r . In these classrooms language i s s t u d i e s i n a f u n c t i o n a l - n o t i o n a l and/or grammar-based c o n t e x t and i t i s hoped t h a t the f u n c t i o n s , n o t i o n s and/or s p e c i f i c grammar p o i n t s l e a r n e d w i l l be used by the students when r e a l c o n v e r s a t i o n o r w r i t i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s a r i s e . The work done by Widdowson (1978:IX) i n d i c a t e s t h a t the nature o f d i s c o u r s e has a much broader scope than what has been d e s c r i b e d above and he s t a t e s t h a t , There seems t o be an assumption i n some q u a r t e r s ... t h a t language i s a u t o m a t i c a l l y taught as communication by the simple expedient of c o n c e n t r a t i o n on 'notions' o r ' f u n c t i o n s ' r a t h e r than on sentences. But people do not communicate by e x p r e s s i n g i s o l a t e d n o t i o n s o r f u l f i l l i n g i s o l a t e d f u n c t i o n s any more than they do so by u t t e r i n g i s o l a t e d sentence p a t t e r n s . (p. i x ) Yet, t h i s k i n d of language t r a i n i n g has been a common t e a c h i n g p r a c t i c e u n t i l r e c e n t l y . Now i t i s r e c o g n i z e d t h a t students want t o t a l k about a v a r i e t y o f i n t e r e s t i n g and complex t o p i c s . What i s needed i s a way t o o r g a n i z e the i n f o r m a t i o n t o make the t o p i c s and the language more a c c e s s i b l e t o second language l e a r n e r s . Current second language r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s (Cummins, 1984; Mohan, 1986; Chamot and O'Malley, 1987) r e c o g n i z e the importance of t o p i c and i t s i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h language and t h i n k i n g as shown i n F i g u r e 1. 3 F i g u r e 1 A Content-based Approach I n t e g r a t e s Language, Content and T h i n k i n g CONTENT-BASED TEACHING LANGUAGE THINKING CONTENT These content-based approaches are e d u c a t i o n a l i n t h e i r broader p e r s p e c t i v e on language. That i s , e d u c a t i o n a l i n t h a t s tudents use language t o l e a r n about the t o p i c , and are l e a r n i n g language as they use i t . T h i s way of t e a c h i n g p r o v i d e s students w i t h o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r e d u c a t i o n a l growth, a n o t i o n supported by Dewey when he s t a t e s , "... the e d u c a t i v e p r o c e s s i s a continuous process of growth." (Dewey, 1926:54) and "... language gents t o become the c h i e f instrument of l e a r n i n g about many t h i n g s ..." (Dewey, 1926:17). As e a r l y as the 1900's, the concern of l e a r n i n g language i n i s o l a t i o n was r a i s e d about n a t i v e speakers when Dewey (1900) commented, Think of the a b s u r d i t y of having t o t e a c h language as a t h i n g by i t s e l f ... when language i s used s i m p l y f o r the r e p e t i t i o n o f l e s s o n s , i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t one of the c h i e f d i f f i c u l t i e s o f s c h o o l work has come t o be i n s t r u c t i o n i n the mother tongue ... In the t r a d i t i o n a l method, the c h i l d must say something t h a t he has merely l e a r n e d . There i s a l l t he d i f f e r e n c e i n the worl d between having something t o say and having t o say something. The c h i l d who has a v a r i e t y o f m a t e r i a l s and f a c t s wants t o t a l k about them and h i s language becomes more r e f i n e d and f u l l , because i t i s c o n t r o l l e d and informed by r e a l i t i e s . (pp. 55-56) 4 T h i s concept of language l e a r n i n g views language as a v e h i c l e t o l e a r n about the world. I t r e c o g n i z e s the important r o l e s c o n t e n t , language, t h i n k i n g and m o t i v a t i o n p l a y i n l e a r n i n g . E l s o n (1987:6) speaks of these as r e c e n t l y d e v e l o p i n g views and suggests t h a t i t "... i s a growing p a r t o f language t e a c h i n g today." I t i s the b e l i e f o f t h i s w r i t e r t h a t some language support c l a s s e s f o r non-native speakers are be g i n n i n g t o put more emphasis on content, r e c o g n i z i n g the m o t i v a t i o n i t can generate when l e a r n i n g language, y e t t h e r e are s t i l l many c l a s s e s t h a t t e a c h language i n i s o l a t i o n . T h i n k i n g , language and content are i n s e p a r a b l e - one uses language t o express one's thoughts about something. I t appears t h a t language l e a r n i n g , viewed i n i s o l a t i o n from c o n t e n t l e a r n i n g , does not f a c i l i t a t e the o b j e c t i v e s o f the e d u c a t i o n a l p h i l o s o p h y h e l d by t h i s w r i t e r and o t h e r s . Both language and content must be seen as i n t e g r a l components of l e a r n i n g and t h a t one cannot be mastered without the o t h e r . As marble i s t o the s c u l p t o r , language i s t o thought. i . Assumptions About Teaching a Second Language Second o r a d d i t i o n a l language c u r r i c u l a developed over the l a s t t e n t o f i f t e e n y e a rs have been based on s e v e r a l commonly h e l d assumptions about t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g language f o r n on-native speakers. These assumptions are now i n q u e s t i o n by many language educators. One assumption i s the need t o t e a c h grammar o r i s o l a t e d b i t s o f language and separate s k i l l s ( r e a d i n g , w r i t i n g , speaking and l i s t e n i n g ) as an aim o r o b j e c t i v e o f a course. 5 As C e l c e - M u r c i a and H i l l e s (1988:1) p o i n t out, "From an h i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e ... t e a c h i n g grammar has been c e n t r a l t o and o f t e n synonymous w i t h t e a c h i n g f o r e i g n language f o r the p a s t 2,500 years ( R u t h e r f o r d , 1987)." Measurement and assessment t o o l s focus on t h i s aspect of language l e a r n i n g and t h e r e f o r e grammar i s viewed as e s s e n t i a l . For example, the T e s t o f E n g l i s h as a F o r e i g n Language i s commonly used t o t e s t language p r o f i c i e n c y . T h i s measure o f t e n determines whether o r not a student may e n t e r a c o l l e g e o r u n i v e r s i t y program. T h e r e f o r e , some ESL i n s t r u c t o r s t e a c h towards the items b e i n g t e s t e d , t h i n k i n g t h a t i f students can master the grammar and o t h e r b i t s of language, then students w i l l be a b l e t o f u n c t i o n w i t h mainstream n a t i v e speakers. Research f i n d i n g s (Cummins, 1979) i n d i c a t e t h a t i t takes non-native speakers f i v e t o seven y e a r s of s c h o o l i n g t o reach grade norms i n E n g l i s h v e r b a l academic s k i l l s (academic s k i l l s as opposed t o s o c i a l c h a t ) . T h i s i s a much l o n g e r time than would be expected g i v e n the c o n t i n u o u s , m o s t l y t r a d i t i o n a l (language i n i s o l a t i o n ) ESL i n s t r u c t i o n students were i n v o l v e d i n d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d . T a y l o r (1987:45) q u e s t i o n s "... the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of our c u r r e n t approaches: t r a d i t i o n a l , grammar-based i n s t r u c t i o n has been w i d e l y c r i t i c i z e d as b e i n g i n e f f e c t i v e " . Yet i t c o n t i n u e s t o be a w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d ESL t e a c h i n g approach f o r students l e a r n i n g t o communicate, both a c a d e m i c a l l y and s o c i a l l y , i n t h e i r t a r g e t language. Another common assumption i s t h a t ESL c u r r i c u l a s hould not i n c l u d e the same t o p i c s as E n g l i s h t e a c h e r s would t e a c h t o n a t i v e speakers. I t i s b e l i e v e d t h a t the two courses should 6 be d i s t i n c t i v e . Teachers sense t h a t non-native speakers' needs a r e d i f f e r e n t from mainstream students and t h e r e f o r e they s h o u l d not l e a r n the same content m a t e r i a l . E l s o n (1987) suggests t h a t the ESL c l a s s should be based on a u t h e n t i c language ex p e r i e n c e s t h a t come from i n v e s t i g a t i n g the use of E n g l i s h f o r s p e c i a l purposes. L i t t l e concern i s i n d i c a t e d f o r what the r e g u l a r students may be s t u d y i n g . Not l e a r n i n g what t h e i r peers are l e a r n i n g d e f i n i t e l y s e t s them a p a r t . L i n k e d t o t h i s i s an assumption t h a t students who cannot speak the t a r g e t language t h i n k a t the same l e v e l as t h e i r language s k i l l s . F o r example, a student p a r t i c i p a t e s i n a v e r y simple, d e s c r i p t i v e a c t i v i t y l i k e food bingo when he i s r e a l l y capable (with some language support) o f working through a consumer de c i s i o n - m a k i n g e x e r c i s e t h a t has a meaningful purpose beyond b u i l d i n g v o c a b u l a r y . Based on p r e v i o u s t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e i t i s c l e a r l y erroneous t o make t h i s assumption. Most students have been engaged a t h i g h e r l e v e l s o f t h i n k i n g i n t h e i r f i r s t language and want t o c o n t i n u e t o c h a l l e n g e t h e i r t h i n k i n g w h i l e l e a r n i n g the second language. F r e q u e n t l y they are fa c e d w i t h a c t i v i t i e s t h a t equate t h i n k i n g and language s k i l l s . The method of t e a c h i n g the same content t o both mainstream and ESL c l a s s e s may be d i f f e r e n t but most non-native students are q u i t e capable o f understanding the same c u r r i c u l u m content as t h e i r n a t i v e speaking peers. T i e d t o t h i s p o s t u l a t e i s the i d e a t h a t ESL c l a s s e s s h o u l d not t e a c h c o n t e n t . The job of the ESL t e a c h e r i s t o te a c h language. T h i s view i s documented by the many c u r r e n t ESL r e s o u r c e m a t e r i a l s developed f o r classroom use t h a t are 7 grammar-based. E n g l i s h i s taught i n i s o l a t i o n , w i t h l i t t l e o r no thought about what students t a l k about i n the process of p r a c t i s i n g language. The t e a c h e r decides on the language s k i l l he/she wants the students t o improve on, whether i t be speaking, l i s t e n i n g , r e a d i n g o r w r i t i n g ; d e cides what s p e c i f i c a s p e c t of t h a t s k i l l t o work on; and then chooses a convenient t o p i c t o p r a c t i s e . The t o p i c here i s seen as l e s s important than the o t h e r c r i t e r i a i n de t e r m i n i n g the c u r r i c u l u m a c t i v i t y . R e l a t e d t o a l l of t h i s i s another assumption t h a t ESL i s about t e a c h i n g E n g l i s h and not about t e a c h i n g t h i n k i n g o r s u b j e c t matter. With language as a p r i o r i t y and l i t t l e emphasis on t h i n k i n g and content, i t would seem a t the v e r y l e a s t t h a t students miss many o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o extend t h e i r t h i n k i n g and knowledge. I f b e l i e v e d and ac t e d upon, these assumptions c l e a r l y l e a d t o something s i m i l a r t o the programming of r o b o t s , where students w i l l use the language they have l e a r n e d i n the cla s s r o o m i f t h a t same s i t u a t i o n a r i s e s i n r e a l l i f e . In most cases i t i s h i g h l y u n l i k e l y t h a t i t w i l l r e o c c u r e x a c t l y the way i t was p r a c t i s e d i n the classroom. T h i s approach f r e q u e n t l y does not promote o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h language, knowledge and t h i n k i n g , thus e d u c a t i o n a l growth, but i n s t e a d encourages something s i m i l a r t o p a r r o t i n g . Why don't we have many p a r r o t i n g non-native speakers then? The answer t o t h a t q u e s t i o n r e l a t e s t o ESL s t u d e n t s ' r e a l - l i f e e x p e r i e n c e s out of the classroom. The n a t u r a l language l a b o r a t o r y o f the s o c i a l environment f o s t e r s growth, c u l t u r a l 8 awareness and a d e s i r e f o r students t o communicate c l e a r l y . These are the c o n d i t i o n s f o r l e a r n i n g we must t r y t o emulate i n the classroom. OBJECTIVES OF AN ESL LANGUAGE EDUCATION CURRICULUM C u r r i c u l u m designed f o r a language e d u c a t i o n e x p e r i e n c e w i t h non-native speakers should f a c i l i t a t e second language a c q u i s i t i o n as w e l l as a s s i s t the i n t e l l e c t u a l growth p o t e n t i a l of i n d i v i d u a l s . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , c u r r i c u l a should p r o v i d e ways of making the communication of t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g e a s i e r (Mohan, 1986:26). Students and t e a c h e r s need c l e a r and simple ways t o share knowledge and e x p e r i e n c e w i t h each o t h e r . ESL c u r r i c u l a s hould develop i n t e g r a t e d language s k i l l s , extend t h i n k i n g (Gagne, 1965), and p r o v i d e a p p r o p r i a t e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r students t o g a i n a knowledge and u n d e r s t a n d i n g of meaningful t o p i c s (Mohan, 1986). A c t i v i t i e s s h o u l d b u i l d c o n f i d e n c e i n students ( F r e i r e , 1970) t o express themselves i n E n g l i s h r e g a r d l e s s of t h e i r l e v e l of competency. A s a f e , s u p p o r t i v e but r i s k - t a k i n g environment encourages students t o share ideas and t o view mistakes as s i g n p o s t s of l e a r n i n g . As students l e a r n another language t h a t i s f u l l of p a r t i c u l a r c u l t u r a l i n s i g h t s (Condon & Yousef, 1975; H a l l i d a y , 1978), t h e y s h o u l d g a i n a g r e a t e r i n t e r n a t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e on l i f e as w e l l as an understanding and a p p r e c i a t i o n of c u l t u r a l v a l u e s and w o r l d c i t i z e n s h i p . These are viewed as the c r i t e r i a upon which a language e d u c a t i o n approach t o language l e a r n i n g s h o u l d be based. 9 These c r i t e r i a q u e s t i o n the assumptions made above about second language t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g . Are t h e r e ways t o t e a c h E n g l i s h t o non-native speakers t h a t are not based on those assumptions? C u r r e n t l y a g r e a t d e a l of r e s e a r c h i s d i r e c t e d towards a more h o l i s t i c approach t o ESL i n s t r u c t i o n t h a t views language l e a r n i n g as an i n t e g r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n v o l v i n g c o n t e n t , language and t h i n k i n g . Does t h i s c o n t e n t -based approach meet the c r i t e r i a f o r a p e d a g o g i c a l l y sound ESL c u r r i c u l u m ? i . Content-Based Language Teaching A content-based approach t o ESL c u r r i c u l u m development f o c u s s e s on t o p i c s o r s i t u a t i o n s . S i t u a t i o n s are the s o c i o c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s o f a s o c i e t y i n which language i s an i n t e g r a l p a r t of the s o c i a l i z a t i o n o f a s o c i e t y member. As Mohan (1987) s t a t e s i n support of H a l l i d a y ' s view of language as s o c i a l s e m i o t i c , the c h i l d l e a r n s language and c u l t u r e a t the same time, and the dynamic i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between l e a r n i n g language and l e a r n i n g c u l t u r e and s u b j e c t matter c o n t i n u e s throughout e d u c a t i o n . Language i s a major source f o r l e a r n i n g about and e x p r e s s i n g what one must say, know, v a l u e and do i n o r d e r t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the s o c i o c u l t u r a l s i t u a t i o n s of s o c i e t y . (p. 1) Language i s one of the mediums through which one l e a r n s about l i f e . And, through t h i s p r o c e s s , the i n t e g r a t e d l e a r n i n g of language s k i l l s , t h i n k i n g and s u b j e c t matter takes p l a c e . 10 a. The Knowledge Framework - a content-based approach t o c u r r i c u l u m d e s i g n A framework t h a t i d e n t i f i e s s i x areas of knowledge and i n c o r p o r a t e s the i n t e g r a t i o n of language and c o n t e n t , based on the i d e a o f an a c t i v i t y , s i t u a t i o n o r t o p i c (these terms w i l l be used i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y by the w r i t e r throughout t h i s t h e s i s ) has been s u c c e s s f u l l y developed by Mohan (1986). Key v i s u a l s ( p i c t u r e s , c h a r t s , maps, graphs, e t c . ) are used t o p r e s e n t c o n t e n t i d e a s ; content and s t r u c t u r e v o c a b u l a r y and o t h e r language items are i n t r o d u c e d o r r e i n f o r c e d t o b r i d g e the r e l a t i o n s h i p between language and content; and students are g i v e n meaningful t a s k s t o p r a c t i s e what has been l e a r n e d . T h i s approach extends t h i n k i n g and p r o v i d e s a technique f o r students t o use language t o l e a r n more about t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a m u l t i - f a c e t e d environment. The framework suggests t h a t every ' l i f e ' a c t i v i t y c o n t a i n s a t l e a s t s i x knowledge s t r u c t u r e s . These s t r u c t u r e s o r 'boxes' i d e n t i f y the p r a c t i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l background i n f o r m a t i o n students w i l l need t o know i n o r d e r t o complete an a c t i v i t y . The diagram f o l l o w i n g i s an example of how the t o p i c , P r e p a r i n g F r u i t S a l a d : How i s i t Done?, i s analyzed u s i n g the framework: 11 F i g u r e 2 T o p i c a l A n a l y s i s Using the Framework CONCEPTS/ CLASSIFICATION PRINCIPLES EVALUATION Types of f r u i t Method f o r Why was s p e c i f i c p r e p a r i n g f r u i t f r u i t chosen? Types of p r e p a r a t i o n To what e x t e n t were d e c i s i o n s Types of u t e n s i l s s a t i s f a c t o r y ? D e s c r i b e f r u i t S e l e c t , wash, Choose the kinds c u t , mix, and of f r u i t and the Naming a v a r i e t y serve f r u i t method of of f r u i t s p r e p a r a t i o n Sequence of steps D e s c r i b i n g the i n r e c i p e p r e p a r a t i o n of f r u i t f o r e a t i n g Naming u t e n s i l s DESCRIPTION SEQUENCE CHOICE The s i x knowledge s t r u c t u r e s of d e s c r i p t i o n , sequence, c h o i c e , c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , p r i n c i p l e s , and e v a l u a t i o n serve as an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l framework f o r the a c t i v i t y . In many cases t e a c h i n g has emphasized d e s c r i p t i o n and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . These are p r o b a b l y the e a s i e s t t o t e a c h . But, by d e v e l o p i n g the l e s s o r or u n i t t o i n c l u d e the o t h e r knowledge s t r u c t u r e s , the student i s encouraged t o engage i n more complex t h i n k i n g p r o c e s s e s . The emphasis i n a p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y may w e l l h i g h l i g h t one of the 'boxes' but a l l the boxes i n t e r a c t . For example, b e f o r e one can make a c h o i c e o r d e c i s i o n , one may need t o understand the concepts 12 ( c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ) or the p r i n c i p l e s i n v o l v e d i n the a c t i v i t y . T h e r e f o r e , i t i s v e r y important t o cover a l l the m a t e r i a l i n the boxes, whether b r i e f l y o r i n d e t a i l , so t h a t students are equipped w i t h the a p p r o p r i a t e i n f o r m a t i o n t o a l l o w f o r meaningful decision-making and e v a l u a t i o n . How i s the language handled w i t h i n t h i s framework? T h i s i n t e g r a t e d approach d e f i n e s each 'box' as c o n t a i n i n g language s p e c i f i c t o the knowledge s t r u c t u r e i t r e p r e s e n t s . For example, the language used t o d i s c u s s the content l i s t e d i n the d e s c r i p t i o n 'box' can be i d e n t i f i e d as s t a t i v e v e r b s , nouns, a d j e c t i v e s , q u a n t i f i e r s ( i e . the jaguar i s a f e r o c i o u s , c a r n i v o r o u s c a t - t h i s i s d e s c r i p t i v e d i s c o u r s e ) . E f f e c t i v e communication i n v o l v e s knowledge of both the language and c o n t e n t a p p r o p r i a t e t o the t o p i c b e i n g d i s c u s s e d . Rather than t e a c h i n g language and content independently t h e r e i s a need t o t e a c h them c o o p e r a t i v e l y . Each a c t i v i t y i s designed t o promote and f a c i l i t a t e the use of language i n d i s c u s s i n g the c o n t e n t as d e s i g n a t e d i n the o u t l i n e o r 'boxes' of knowledge s t r u c t u r e s . The language needed t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y i n v o l v e s the language of d e s c r i p t i o n , sequence and c h o i c e . Once t h i s language i s l e a r n e d i n a s p e c i f i c a c t i o n s i t u a t i o n i t can be e a s i l y t r a n s f e r r e d t o o t h e r c o n t e n t areas. In an a c t i v i t y , not o n l y does the student d e s c r i b e and t e l l the o r d e r of events but he/she i s expected t o t a l k about c h o i c e s and reasons f o r those c h o i c e s . T h i s communicative environment needs t o be c r e a t e d by the i n s t r u c t o r t o ensure a p p r o p r i a t e d i a l o g u e and d i s c o u r s e usage. Mohan (1986) 13 suggests the use of g r a p h i c s t o te a c h the language and content of the a c t i v i t y . F or example, a flow c h a r t (see Appendix A) not o n l y promotes d i a l o g u e about d e s c r i p t i o n and sequence but' i t a l s o a l l o w s f o r d i s c u s s i o n about c h o i c e s and reasons f o r those c h o i c e s . During the course o f the d i a l o g u e v a r i o u s speech a c t s , s o c i a l c o n d i t i o n s f o r speech, and r e p a i r s can be demonstrated by the i n s t r u c t o r and put i n t o p r a c t i c e by the s t u d e n t s . Flow c h a r t s a l s o o f f e r many o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r f r e e responses t o the s i t u a t i o n s presented. T h i s approach uses v i s u a l s e x t e n s i v e l y t o o r g a n i z e the cont e n t and the language t o be taught and l e a r n e d . The i n s t r u c t o r uses g r a p h i c s t o promote the language ne c e s s a r y t o d i s c u s s s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s and a s s i s t students t o g e n e r a l i z e t h e i r l e a r n i n g about background knowledge w i t h i n the c u l t u r a l r e s t r a i n t s o f the E n g l i s h language. The same g r a p h i c ( i e . a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n t r e e ) can be used w i t h a v a r i e t y o f t o p i c s whereby the s t r u c t u r a l v o c a b u l a r y can remain the same and w h i l e the content v o c a b u l a r y changes. In t h i s way language and c o n t e n t work c o o p e r a t i v e l y a t a s p e c i f i c l e v e l t h a t i s then g e n e r a l i z e d and a p p l i e d t o o t h e r content a r e a s . T h i s t h e s i s w i l l focus on a s p e c i f i c content-based c u r r i c u l u m (An I n t e r a c t i v e Content-Based ESL C u r r i c u l u m (1989) h e r e i n r e f e r r e d t o as the SELP c u r r i c u l u m ) t h a t uses the knowledge framework as a way of o r g a n i z i n g the language, c o n t e n t and t h i n k i n g processes f o r a s h o r t s t a y ( t h r e e t o s i x . weeks d u r a t i o n ) program f o r v i s i t i n g overseas s t u d e n t s . T h i s c u r r i c u l u m w i l l be used as a b a s i s f o r d i s c u s s i o n o f some key p e d a g o g i c a l i s s u e s i n v o l v e d i n content-based ESL c u r r i c u l a . 14 SOME PEDAGOGICAL ISSUES AND RATIONALE FOR CONTENT-BASED ESL CURRICULA i . Higher L e v e l T h i n k i n g and Non-Native Speakers The i d e a t h a t non-native speakers might o f t e n have t o d e a l w i t h complex concepts i n a content-based c u r r i c u l u m i s a c o ncern o f some ESL i n s t r u c t o r s . I t seems t h a t many f e e l s t u d e n t s cannot communicate about complex t o p i c s u n t i l t h e i r language has reached an i n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l of p r o f i c i e n c y . T h e r e f o r e t h e i n s t r u c t o r ' s focus i s on the s t r u c t u r e of language and v o c a b u l a r y development, and f r e q u e n t l y what the students speak about i s a s i m p l i f i e d o r c o n c e p t u a l l y easy t o p i c . What the knowledge framework approach o f f e r s i s a l i n k between language, content and c o g n i t i v e processes t h a t w i l l a l l o w s tudents t o t h i n k about t o p i c s a t the h i g h e r c o n c e p t u a l l e v e l s used i n t h e i r f i r s t language. As has a l r e a d y been s t a t e d , g r a p h i c s p l a y a key r o l e i n u n i t i n g the c o n t e n t s t u d i e d and the language needed t o express i n f o r m a t i o n and s t u d e n t s ' i d e a s about the content. In R.S. P e t e r ' s E t h i c s and E d u c a t i o n , t h e r e i s an account o f the c o g n i t i v e aspects of e d u c a t i o n . He s t a t e s t h a t f o r someone t o be educated, (h)e must have ... some body of knowledge and some k i n d of a c o n c e p t u a l scheme t o r a i s e t h i s above the l e v e l o f a c o l l e c t i o n of d i s j o i n t e d f a c t s . T h i s i m p l i e s some understanding of p r i n c i p l e s f o r the o r g a n i z a t i o n of f a c t s . (p. 30) C l e a r l y P e t e r s d e s c r i b e s the e d u c a t i o n a l important of knowledge and understanding i n a way t h a t supports the n o t i o n of p r o v i d i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n the classroom f o r engaging 15 students i n h i g h e r l e v e l t h i n k i n g w h i l e they l e a r n content and language. P e t e r s goes on t o say, "... e d u c a t i o n i m p l i e s t h a t a man's o u t l o o k i s transformed by what he knows." ( P e t e r s , 1966:31) That i s , the student i s committed t o an a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the forms of thought and awareness t h a t have been t r a n s m i t t e d t o him through h i s e x p e r i e n c e i n the i n s t r u c t i o n a l s e t t i n g . In i n t e r n a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n , most stu d e n t s want t o be i n v o l v e d i n e x p l o r i n g o t h e r c u l t u r e s ; they want t o extend t h e i r c o g n i t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e on l i f e . That i s p a r t o f what i n t e r n a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n i s a l l about. A c o n t e n t -based approach, through the i n t e g r a t i o n of s k i l l s and knowledge, i s a b l e t o reach t h i s mandate of e d u c a t i o n more e f f e c t i v e l y than o t h e r ESL approaches. T h i n k i n g processes have been a t o p i c of d i s c u s s i o n f o r many i n v o l v e d i n e d u c a t i o n . Gagne (1965) i d e n t i f i e s e i g h t types of l e a r n i n g and d e s c r i b e s the c o n d i t i o n s t h a t are n e c e s s a r y f o r each type of l e a r n i n g t o take p l a c e . H i s types are h i e r a r c h i c a l and support the concept of h i g h e r l e v e l t h i n k i n g . He r e c o g n i z e s p r i n c i p l e s and problem s o l v i n g as types of l e a r n i n g t h a t are more complex c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s . T h i s i s s i m i l a r t o the o r g a n i z a t i o n format of the s i x s t r u c t u r e s of knowledge pre s e n t e d i n the knowledge framework. Both espouse the importance of extending the educands' c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y i n t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n of e d u c a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s . F o r example, one of the courses i n the SELP c u r r i c u l u m i s e n t i t l e d I n t e r n a t i o n a l C i t i z e n s h i p . One a c t i v i t y has students i d e n t i f y g l o b a l i s s u e s (concepts) through the use of p i c t u r e s ; 16 develop some v o c a b u l a r y from the v i s u a l s ; and, c o n t r i b u t e background i n f o r m a t i o n about the concept expressed c o l l e c t i v e l y on a c h a r t ( c l a s s i f i c a t i o n t r e e , c o n d i t i o n - e f f e c t t r e e , concept map, e t c . ) t h a t w i l l form a b a s i s f o r d i s c u s s i o n about the t o p i c . Not o n l y are students expected t o d e s c r i b e and c l a s s i f y the t o p i c , i e . p o l l u t i o n , but a l s o l o o k a t cause and e f f e c t , c h o i c e s and e v a l u a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h i s i s s u e . Of cou r s e , each i n d i v i d u a l ' s l e v e l of language and background knowledge w i l l a f f e c t t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n i n the classroom, but they can a l l p a r t i c i p a t e i n l e a r n i n g from each o t h e r and i n ex t e n d i n g t h e i r t h i n k i n g however low t h e i r language o r knowledge o f the t o p i c might be. F r e i r e , an e d u c a t i o n a l p h i l o s o p h e r who works w i t h i l l i t e r a t e s i n T h i r d World c o u n t r i e s , would view t h i s a c t i v i t y as a l i b e r a t i n g e d u c a t i o n a l approach t o c u r r i c u l u m . Although he d e a l s w i t h oppressors and the oppressed, he suggests t h a t power s t r u g g l e s e x i s t a t many l e v e l s and i n t e n s i t i e s i n a v a r i e t y o f s i t u a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g the classroom between the t e a c h e r and h i s / h e r s t u d e n t s . H i s pedagogy i s s t r u c t u r e d around d i a l o g u e between the t e a c h e r and student where r e a l -l i f e problems are pr e s e n t e d and d i s c u s s e d and then s o l u t i o n s are sought. In t h i s sense, i t i s a p r o b l e m - p o s i n g / l i b e r a t i n g approach t o e d u c a t i o n where students are engaged i n h i g h e r l e v e l s o f t h i n k i n g . As F r e i r e s t a t e s , " L i b e r a t i n g e d u c a t i o n c o n s i s t s i n a c t s o f c o g n i t i o n , not t r a n s f e r r a l s o f i n f o r m a t i o n . " ( F r e i r e , 1970:67). He goes on t o speak of st u d e n t s , 17 As t h e y a t t a i n t h i s knowledge of r e a l i t y through common r e f l e c t i o n and a c t i o n , they d i s c o v e r themselves as i t s permanent r e - c r e a t o r s . In t h i s way, the presence of the oppressed i n the s t r u g g l e f o r t h e i r l i b e r a t i o n w i l l be what i t should be: not p s e u d o - p a r t i c i p a t i o n , but committed involvement, (p. 56) T h i s i s t i e d t o P e t e r s (1966) i d e a of commitment, the a c t i v e involvement and f o l l o w through of the p a r t i c i p a n t s t o behave i n a manner t h a t d i s p l a y s t h e i r b e l i e f s , t h e i r u nderstanding and awareness of the t o p i c b e i n g d i s c u s s e d . The Knowledge Framework approach t o language e d u c a t i o n i n v o l v e s students i n i n t e l l e c t u a l growth because they are asked t o t h i n k about t o p i c s a t l e v e l s which are o f t e n not i n c l u d e d i n a more t r a d i t i o n a l language t r a i n i n g c u r r i c u l u m . I t expands t h e i r c o g n i t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e and views these components of l e a r n i n g (knowledge and c o g n i t i v e p r ocesses) as a p a r t of the process of l e a r n i n g language. i i . Meaningfulness of C u r r i c u l u m Content Students are motivated t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n d i s c o u r s e when i t i s on a t o p i c they are i n t e r e s t e d i n ; have a s p e c i f i c purpose f o r l e a r n i n g i t ; o r view i t as a s i t u a t i o n t h a t c o n t a i n s ' r e a l - l i f e ' elements (Mohan, 1986; Swain, 1987). M o t i v a t i o n of t h i s nature i s e s s e n t i a l i n the o v e r a l l process of e d u c a t i o n . Students need t o see a l o g i c a l , meaningful reason f o r l e a r n i n g a p a r t i c u l a r t o p i c , t h a t as P e t e r s would say, i s something worthwhile. Not a l l students w i l l r e c o g n i z e the v a l u e of l e a r n i n g about a t o p i c i n i t i a l l y , but d u r i n g the p r o c e s s of b e i n g educated about the t o p i c , the r e a l i z a t i o n of l e a r n i n g something worthwhile should occur. 18 Bruner i n The Process of E d u c a t i o n t a l k s about, "... the d e s i r e t o l e a r n and how i t may be s t i m u l a t e d . " (Bruner, 1960:14) He says, " I d e a l l y , i n t e r e s t i n the m a t e r i a l t o be l e a r n e d i s the b e s t s t i m u l u s t o l e a r n i n g ..." ( i b i d . ) . F r e i r e , t oo, supports t h i s n o t i o n i n t h a t the d i a l o g i c nature of h i s approach determines the t o p i c o r content m a t e r i a l f o r the c u r r i c u l u m from the s t u d e n t s . In t h i s way students f e e l t hey p l a y a r o l e i n t h e i r e d u c a t i o n , become more i n t e r e s t e d and i n v o l v e d and, u l t i m a t e l y , become more educated. When students are i n t r i n s i c a l l y m o t i v a t e d t o l e a r n about a t o p i c , t h e i r language s k i l l s w i l l develop, t h e i r v o c a b u l a r y w i l l grow and t h e i r t h i n k i n g w i l l expand because they want them t o , not because some e x t r i n s i c f o r c e i s t e l l i n g them they have t o . Dewey (1926) warns of the, ... s t a n d i n g danger t h a t the m a t e r i a l of formal i n s t r u c t i o n w i l l be merely the s u b j e c t matter of the s c h o o l s , i s o l a t e d from the s u b j e c t matter of l i f e -e x p e r i e n c e , (p. 10) T h i s does not have t o happen i f educators are s e n s i t i v e t o the needs and i n t e r e s t s of t h e i r students and ask f o r student i n p u t i n such d e c i s i o n s about content wherever p o s s i b l e . The knowledge framework allows f o r t h i s . Oakeshott, a c o n s e r v a t i v e educator, w r i t e s t h a t e d u c a t i o n i s "... l e a r n i n g t o look, t o l i s t e n , t o t h i n k , t o f e e l , t o imagine, t o b e l i e v e , t o understand, t o choose and t o wish ... (Oakeshott, 1975:20)". Yet, he e x p l a i n s t h a t e d u c a t i o n w i l l be "... i n h i b i t e d u n l e s s t h e r e i s a c o n t i n g e n t b e l i e f i n the worth o f what i s t o be mediated t o the newcomer ... ( i b i d . ) " . Oakeshott's concern i s t h a t e d u c a t i o n i s commonly seen as 19 having an e x t r i n s i c purpose f o r the educand. He b e l i e v e s the worth of e d u c a t i o n t o the newcomer (student) s h o u l d focus on the i n t r i n s i c q u a l i t y of l i f e . Although h i s sense of worth s h o u l d be i n t r i n s i c m o t i v a t i o n , t h i s i s not always the case. But students can t u r n e x t r i n s i c purpose i n t o i n t r i n s i c v a l u e i f guided t h o u g h t f u l l y through c a r e f u l l y designed c u r r i c u l a t h a t i s meaningful and i n v o l v i n g . F r e i r e , as w e l l , w r i t e s of the s i g n i f i c a n c e of i n v o l v i n g the students i n meaningful d i a l o g u e when he s t a t e s , The t e a c h e r i s no l o n g e r merely the one-who-teaches, but one who i s h i m s e l f taught i n d i a l o g u e w i t h the s t u d e n t s , who i n t u r n w h i l e b e i n g taught a l s o t e a c h e s . They become j o i n t l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a p r o c e s s i n which a l l grow ... the students are now c r i t i c a l c o - i n v e s t i g a t o r s i n d i a l o g u e w i t h the t e a c h e r . (p. 67-680 The importance of m o t i v a t i o n and how i t r e l a t e s t o meaningfulness i n c u r r i c u l a cannot be underestimated. M o t i v a t i o n i s the key t o l e a r n i n g and c u r r i c u l u m must somehow package i t s e l f i n such a way t h a t allows m o t i v a t i o n t o p l a y a r o l e i n the c u r r i c u l u m ' s d e l i v e r y of meaningful c o n t e n t . The developers of the SELP c u r r i c u l u m i n v e s t i g a t e d the g e n e r a l needs and i n t e r e s t s of students v i s i t i n g Canada b e f o r e d e t e r m i n i n g the content of the intended c u r r i c u l u m . Some of the c o n t e n t i n t h a t c u r r i c u l u m i n c l u d e s the t o p i c of consumerism because most v i s i t i n g students are n o t o r i o u s shoppers. In an i n t e g r a t e d way, the a c t i v i t y " E a t i n g Out: Where Should We Go?" (see Appendix B) can focus on s p e c i f i c need-to-know i n f o r m a t i o n (such as l o c a l customs, understanding the menu, how t o pay, t a x e s , t i p p i n g , money) f o r e a t i n g out i n the c i t y . Another consumerism a c t i v i t y (see Appendix C) 20 fo c u s s e s on the q u e s t i o n of q u a l i t y versus q u a n t i t y when p u r c h a s i n g g i f t s and s o u v e n i r s t o take back t o t h e i r home co u n t r y . These are experiences t h a t are ' r e a l - l i f e ' a c t i v i t i e s and students want t o know about them, not o n l y from a c u l t u r a l p e r s p e c t i v e but a l s o from a language p e r s p e c t i v e . Students are i n v o l v e d i n u s i n g the language t o l e a r n about t o p i c s t h a t a re i n t e r e s t i n g and important t o them. By ex t e n d i n g t h e i r e x t r i n s i c m o t i v a t i o n o f p u r c h a s i n g g i f t s t o t h i n k i n g about what they are buying and why they are buying i t , v a l u e s and b e l i e f s about themselves and o t h e r s become an i n t r i n s i c a l l y e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e . i i i . The Role o f C u l t u r e i n Language L e a r n i n g C u l t u r e p l a y s a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n language l e a r n i n g t h a t s h o u l d be r e c o g n i z e d and addressed by educators i n v o l v e d i n second language t e a c h i n g . As expressed by Dewey, language cannot be i s o l a t e d from c u l t u r e . He s t a t e s t h a t , "... the h a b i t s o f language ..." (Dewey, 1926:21) are the r e s u l t o f the "...unconscious i n f l u e n c e o f the environment" ( i b i d . ) . A l t hough he speaks of n a t i v e speakers, the s o c i a l i z a t i o n of language i s c u l t u r e s p e c i f i c and can be l e a r n e d by non-native speakers as w e l l . Many non-verbal c u l t u r a l cues f a c i l i t a t e communication and are a p a r t o f the process o f l e a r n i n g t o speak l i k e a n a t i v e . D e l l Humes (1968) has r e s e a r c h e d what he c a l l s c o n d i t i o n s f o r speech and i d e n t i f i e s components such as sex, s t a t u s , age, s e t t i n g , t o p i c and audience as i n f l u e n c i n g how we speak t o o t h e r s . Non-native speakers can be taught t o r e c o g n i z e and use a p p r o p r i a t e d i s c o u r s e a c c o r d i n g t o these 21 c o n d i t i o n s f o r speech. With d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r e s the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of speech and non-verbal behaviour changes and by comparing n a t i v e and non-native c u l t u r e s students l e a r n more about themselves from an i n t e r n a t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e , as w e l l as l e a r n more about t h e i r n a t i v e c u l t u r e . Many s c h o l a r s have s t u d i e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p between c u l t u r e and language and most emphasize the importance of i n c l u d i n g c u l t u r e when l e a r n i n g language. In the SELP c u r r i c u l u m a u n i t on i n t e r a c t i o n a l d i s c o u r s e was designed t o a s s i s t students i n t h e i r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the s t r u c t u r e o f c o n v e r s a t i o n and then a p p l y t h a t l e a r n i n g t o Hyme's c o n d i t i o n s f o r speech. In t h i s way students c o u l d l e a r n both non-verbal cues and a p p r o p r i a t e language f o r s i t u a t i o n s t h a t were c u l t u r a l l y s p e c i f i c . They were l e a r n i n g t o speak more n a t i v e - l i k e , but a t the same time they were l e a r n i n g more about t h e i r own c u l t u r e . Dewey would, agai n , see t h i s as a growth ex p e r i e n c e . In an i n t e r n a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n a l environment, c u l t u r e i s an e s s e n t i a l element of c u r r i c u l u m . An experi e n c e i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n should be more than l e a r n i n g an a d d i t i o n a l language, i t sh o u l d encompass o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o l e a r n about and understand o t h e r c u l t u r e s ' p e r s p e c t i v e s and, i n r e f l e c t i o n , l e a r n more about o n e s e l f . COMMENTS Given the i s s u e s and r a t i o n a l e d i s c u s s e d above, i t seems t h a t t h e r e i s c l e a r j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r u s i n g a content-based approach, such as the knowledge framework, f o r E n g l i s h as a Second Language c u r r i c u l a . T h i s approach i n t e g r a t e s language s k i l l s , t h i n k i n g and s u b j e c t matter as a way of l e a r n i n g . Depending on the aims and o b j e c t i v e s of the c u r r i c u l u m , the focus o f any one t a s k may be speaking, l i s t e n i n g , r e a d i n g , w r i t i n g i n combination w i t h any one of the m u l t i p l e l e v e l s of t h i n k i n g and t o p i c s . The key i s t o view the s k i l l s as i n t e g r a l components of the d i s c o u r s e generated about t o p i c s ; the s t a r t i n g p o i n t i s the t o p i c , not the language s k i l l . Other f a c t o r s which p l a y a r o l e i n the e d u c a t i o n of the educand cannot be i g n o r e d : l e a r n e r s t r a t e g i e s , i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s (as opposed t o c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s ) f o r both the t e a c h e r and the student, and methodology used by the t e a c h e r i n the formal s e t t i n g . For example, group work has been r e c o g n i z e d by many s c h o l a r s as an important technique i n the achievement of e d u c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s . Dewey (1926) comments t h a t t h e , ... use of language t o convey and a c q u i r e i d e a s i s an e x t e n s i o n and refinement of the p r i n c i p l e t h a t t h i n g s g a i n meaning by b e i n g used i n a shared e x p e r i e n c e o r j o i n t a c t i o n . (p. 19) And, F r e i r e supports t h i s n o t i o n w i t h h i s a d v o c a t i o n of a d i a l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between the educator and the educand. Although t h e r e are o c c a s i o n s when l e c t u r e s t y l e o r t e a c h e r -f r o n t e d a c t i v i t i e s are necessary, the models of shared l e a r n i n g such as peer t e a c h i n g and c o o p e r a t i v e l e a r n i n g (Mohan, 1986; S l a v i n , 1987) seem t o promote a more p o s i t i v e environment f o r e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s . 23 Chapter Two REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE An i n c r e a s i n g number of v i s i t i n g f o r e i g n students p a r t i c i p a t e i n s h o r t - s t a y ( d e f i n e d as two t o s i x weeks d u r a t i o n ) E n g l i s h language programs as p a r t of a broader e x p e r i e n c e i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n . They come w i t h a v a r i e t y of backgrounds both i n t h e i r p r e v i o u s study o f E n g l i s h and i n t h e i r motives f o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n such a program. Some seek a s o c i a l - f u n c t i o n a l o p e r a t i o n of the language w h i l e o t h e r s s t r i v e f o r academic p r o f i c i e n c y . That i s , t h e y want t o l e a r n the language t h a t i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h academic l e a r n i n g . T i e d t o a l l of these demands i s a keen d e s i r e t o understand c u l t u r a l a s p e c t s of the language and i t s s o c i e t y . The g o a l , then, i s t o d e s i g n a c u r r i c u l u m t h a t encompasses student t a s k s which are communicative, c o g n i t i v e and s o c i o - c u l t u r a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e as a way of u s i n g language t o study c o n t e n t . The key i s t o use an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l framework t h a t w i l l a l l o w these approaches t o i n t e g r a t e s u c c e s s f u l l y . The SELP c u r r i c u l u m , used i n t h i s study and diagrammed i n F i g u r e 3, i s . an example of a content-based, i n t e r a c t i v e c u r r i c u l u m . 24 F i g u r e 3 The SELP C u r r i c u l u m THE SELP CURRICULUM APPROACH DESIGN PROCEDURE (based on t h e o r i e s of language and language l e a r n i n g (the s y l l a b u s ) (techniques, p r a c t i c e s , t a s k s ) CONTENT-BASED, THE KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORK INTERACTIVE, STUDENT-CENTRED As expressed i n Chapter 1, many r e s e a r c h e r s have s t u d i e d both f i r s t and second language l e a r n i n g i n i s o l a t i o n from t h a t o f l e a r n i n g s u b j e c t matter ( B l o o m f i e l d , 1942; Chomsky, 1957; Brooks, 1964; Van Ek, 1971). O f t e n d i s c r e t e grammar items and language f u n c t i o n s and no t i o n s were taught independent o f a u t h e n t i c c o n t e x t . For l i n g u i s t s , t h i s approach appeared a p p r o p r i a t e but many second language l e a r n e r s ' needs were more c o n c r e t e . They wanted t o be a b l e t o communicate i n a v a r i e t y of s i t u a t i o n a l c o n t e x t s , both s o c i a l l y and a c a d e m i c a l l y . H a l l i d a y (1978) views language as s o c i a l s e m i o t i c and argues t h a t The c o n t e x t p l a y s a p a r t i n deter m i n i n g what we say; and what we say p l a y s a p a r t i n de t e r m i n i n g the co n t e x t . As we l e a r n how to mean, we l e a r n how t o p r e d i c t each from the o t h e r . (p. 3) More r e c e n t s t u d i e s focus on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between language and c o n t e n t and view language as an instrument t h a t i s used t o l e a r n c o n t e n t m a t e r i a l . Wesche and Ready (1985) r e p o r t the r e s u l t s o f a study t h a t suggest 25 ... gains i n second language p r o f i c i e n c y are b e s t a c h i e v e d i n s i t u a t i o n s where the second language i s used as a v e h i c l e f o r communication about o t h e r s u b j e c t s r a t h e r than i t s e l f b e i n g the o b j e c t o f study. (p. 90) T h i s i n t e r e s t has grown r a p i d l y and s e v e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s have • developed approaches t h a t emphasize the l i n k between language and c o n t e n t . T h i s review o f l i t e r a t u r e addresses language and content pedagogy f o r second language (L2) c u r r i c u l u m d e s i g n and i n t e r a c t i v e t e a c h i n g methodology. F i r s t , a summary of f i r s t language r e s e a r c h a c r o s s the c u r r i c u l u m and r e a d i n g i n the co n t e n t areas w i l l be d i s c u s s e d . Second, a survey o f second language r e s e a r c h i n French Immersion, c o g n i t i o n and language, and w r i t i n g i n the content areas w i l l be pr e s e n t e d . T h i r d , a lo o k a t s e v e r a l models t h a t i n t e g r a t e content and language w i l l be reviewed and a more d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s g i v e n t o one of those models as a b a s i s f o r o r g a n i z i n g c u r r i c u l u m . F i n a l l y , two p e d a g o g i c a l methods w i l l be d i s c u s s e d as t o t h e i r p o t e n t i a l f o r maximizing the use of language t o l e a r n . FIRST LANGUAGE RESEARCH ON LANGUAGE AND CONTENT i . Language Ac r o s s the C u r r i c u l u m R e c o g n i t i o n was g i v e n t o the need f o r a language p o l i c y f o r a l l s u b j e c t s throughout the s c h o o l i n the e a r l y s e v e n t i e s when the B u l l o c k Report (1975) made p u b l i c i t s f i n d i n g s i n B r i t a i n . T h i s study had a g r e a t impact, not o n l y i n B r i t a i n , but a l s o i n f l u e n c e d o t h e r areas such as A u s t r a l i a and O n t a r i o , Canada and was the be g i n n i n g o f a new d i r e c t i o n i n language 26 t e a c h i n g . Not o n l y d i d i t support a common language and r e a d i n g program f o r a l l t e a c h e r s i n every s c h o o l , but i t was one o f the f i r s t t o suggest t h a t the process students worked through i n completing a t a s k was j u s t as important as the pro d u c t . Although the study made numerous o t h e r recommendations, i t s focus was r e a l l y i n p r o v i d i n g premises about whole-school language pedagogy from which o t h e r s c o u l d b u i l d . I t o f f e r e d l i t t l e i n showing how t h e i r recommendations c o u l d be implemented o r how the l i n k between co n t e n t and language c o u l d be made. Many d i d attempt t o make some of the B u l l o c k Report's recommendations o p e r a t i o n a l . Marland (1977) c r e a t e d an o r g a n i z a t i o n p a t t e r n f o r a whole-school language p o l i c y . He b e l i e v e s t h a t , L e a r n i n g ... i n v o l v e s language not merely as a p a s s i v e medium f o r r e c e i v i n g i n s t r u c t i o n , but as the e s s e n t i a l means of forming and h a n d l i n g concepts. Thus l e a r n i n g i s not merely through language but w i t h language (p. i x ) . In h i s program, a l l t e a c h e r s had t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n o r d e r t o be e f f e c t i v e . I t d i d not a l l o w f o r i n d i v i d u a l i t y of t e a c h i n g approaches. The s c h o o l t h e o r y o f p u n c t u a t i o n t h a t was developed was one i n d i c a t i o n t h a t the focus was p r i m a r i l y on language. Very l i t t l e was s a i d about s u b j e c t content and the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two. Even as r e c e n t l y as 1980, the B u l l o c k f i n d i n g s were being used as a b a s i s f o r d e v e l o p i n g implementation s t r a t e g i e s f o r language a c r o s s the c u r r i c u l u m . Torbe (1980) looked more c l o s e l y a t understanding the c o n n e c t i o n between language and 27 l e a r n i n g and fo c u s s e d on a theme t e a c h i n g approach i n h i s attempt t o c l o s e the gap. The B u l l o c k Report's f i n d i n g s opened the water gate t o language and content r e s e a r c h and p r a c t i c e but, i t d i d not seem t o have c l e a r l y d e f i n e d the communicative environment of e i t h e r the language c l a s s o r the content c l a s s i n an attempt t o determine e x a c t l y what t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p was. A s c h o o l language p o l i c y was one of the f i r s t steps toward r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t t h e r e was a c o n n e c t i o n but i t was a l o n g way from i d e n t i f y i n g e x a c t l y what t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p was and how i t c o u l d be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o an e q u a l i z e d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p l a n f o r language and s u b j e c t l e a r n i n g . i i . Reading i n the Content Area An a r e a t h a t has been i n v e s t i g a t e d and o r g a n i z e d s u c c e s s f u l l y f o r l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g i e s i s r e a d i n g i n the content a r e a s . Herber (1978) r e c o g n i z e d the need t o be taught d i f f e r e n t r e a d i n g s t r a t e g i e s depending on the k i n d o f t e x t students were r e a d i n g . He f e l t t h a t , ... formal e d u c a t i o n should a c q u a i n t students w i t h the s t r u c t u r e o f v a r i o u s d i s c i p l i n e s i n d e p e n d e n t l y (p. v ) . He viewed t e a c h i n g f a c t s as secondary t o the main g o a l o f e d u c a t i o n i n any content c l a s s . The two premises t h a t are the f o u n d a t i o n of h i s approach are t h a t students need t o be taught how t o l e a r n and t h a t too few teach e r s know how t o develop c o n t e n t and r e a d i n g s t r a t e g i e s a t the same time. He pr e s e n t s a t e a c h e r ' s guide t o the t e a c h i n g o f l e a r n i n g s k i l l s w i t h c o n t e n t . Herber (1978) suggests t h a t t h e r e are some u n i v e r s a l 28 c o n t e n t r e a d i n g s k i l l s t h a t can be taught and t r a n s f e r r e d a c r o s s the c u r r i c u l u m . He i d e n t i f i e s t e c h n i c a l v o c a b u l a r y as the language of content and suggests t h a t students need t h i s v o c a b u l a r y b e f o r e they can d i s c u s s t h e i r i d e a s about the c o n t e n t m a t e r i a l . His recommendation i s t h a t r e a d i n g be taught i n the s u b j e c t area r a t h e r than i n the language c l a s s . Many o f the r e a d i n g i n content area approaches p r o v i d e l e a r n e r s w i t h a process t o f o l l o w as a s t r a t e g y f o r l e a r n i n g c o n t e n t . One such process might h e l p the l e a r n e r work through a p h y s i c s problem by a s k i n g q u e s t i o n s t h a t h e l p focus on the key words needed f o r understanding. Many o t h e r techniques have been developed by people i n v o l v e d i n r e a d i n g i n the c o n t e n t a r e a s . These are important l e a r n i n g s k i l l s t o be mastered by a l l who want not o n l y t o l e a r n t o r e a d but t o read t o l e a r n . The f i n d i n g s i n t h i s f i e l d o f f i r s t language r e s e a r c h have s i g n i f i c a n t i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r second language l e a r n e r s as they, too, have the same r e a d i n g demands p l a c e d on them by c o n t e n t t e a c h e r s and w i l l need t o l e a r n and p r a c t i s e these s k i l l s f o r s u c c e s s f u l achievement i n content c o u r s e s . I t seems t h a t t h e r e are s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t types of r e a d i n g s k i l l s t h a t a l e a r n e r must master. Developmental r e a d i n g s k i l l s t e a c h the l e a r n e r how t o read, a t a s k u s u a l l y done i n the language c l a s s . Content r e a d i n g demands d i f f e r e n t types of r e a d i n g s k i l l s , some of which can be t r a n s f e r a b l e (Herber, 1978) and o t h e r s which are s p e c i f i c t o a p a r t i c u l a r s u b j e c t a r e a , g i v i n g the l e a r n e r the o p p o r t u n i t y t o read t o l e a r n . The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and t e a c h i n g of these s k i l l s can o n l y enhance the l e a r n e r ' s c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y t o d e a l w i t h the 29 c o n t e n t m a t e r i a l whether they are n a t i v e speakers o r second language l e a r n e r s . Not o n l y are s p e c i f i c r e a d i n g s k i l l s important t o master, but l e a r n e r ' s schemata must be c o n s i d e r e d and expanded as they r e a d t o l e a r n . The Schema Theory, as pr e s e n t e d by Hacker (1980) s t a t e s t h a t , t h e s e schemata r e p r e s e n t g e n e r i c knowledge, t h a t i s , what i s b e l i e v e d t o be g e n e r a l l y t r u e , based on ex p e r i e n c e , of a c l a s s of o b j e c t s , a c t i o n s , o r s i t u a t i o n s (p. 867). T h i s t h e o r y says t h a t r e a d i n g comprehension i n v o l v e s r e l a t i n g t e x t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n t o the background knowledge o r schemata of the r e a d e r . The reader's schemata a i d s t h e i r u n d erstanding of the r e a d i n g m a t e r i a l and t h a t f u r t h e r r e a d i n g o f i n f o r m a t i o n a l m a t e r i a l can expand the l e a r n e r ' s schemata. T h e r e f o r e i t i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t the p r e v i o u s l y mentioned r e a d i n g s k i l l s be taught and p r a c t i s e d i n the content classroom. C a r r e l l and E i s t e r h o l d (1983) r e c o g n i z e d the importance of schemata w i t h second language l e a r n e r s and noted how c u l t u r a l l y s p e c i f i c background knowledge c o u l d a f f e c t the comprehension of r e a d i n g m a t e r i a l . SECOND LANGUAGE RESEARCH ON LANGUAGE AND CONTENT i . The French Immersion Connection The French Immersion programs o f f e r e d i n Canada te a c h c o n t e n t through the French language. Students i n t h i s program study the same c u r r i c u l a p r e s c r i b e d f o r E n g l i s h speaking s t u d e n t s a t the same grade l e v e l . When they were compared t o ot h e r s who were i n v o l v e d i n a French as a Second Language 30 c o u r s e , f i n d i n g s show t h a t French Immersion students a t t a i n e d a h i g h e r l e v e l of language p r o f i c i e n c y (Swain, 1974). T h i s does not i n d i c a t e t h a t FSL i n s t r u c t i o n i s not needed, as may be i n t e r p r e t e d by t h i s f i n d i n g . A c l o s e r examination r e v e a l e d t h a t i t was the type of c h i l d e n r o l l e d i n French Immersion, one whose f i r s t language was a m a j o r i t y language, t h a t a f f e c t e d a c q u i s i t i o n of a second language and achievement i n c o n t e n t c l a s s e s (Cummins, 1979). T h i s f a c t o r c o n t r i b u t e s t o the success of the French Immersion program as w e l l as French, language a r t s , but what i s the c o n n e c t i o n t o content? Swain (1987) suggests t h a t methodology i n p r e s e n t i n g c o n t e n t i s one area t h a t should be i n v e s t i g a t e d as h a ving an e f f e c t on second language a c q u i s i t i o n (SLA). Her study f o c u s s e d on a t y p i c a l content l e s s o n ( H i s t o r y ) , which i n v o l v e d a t e a c h e r - c e n t r e d q u e s t i o n and answer s e s s i o n , and looked a t the frequency and l e n g t h of student t a l k . The f i n d i n g s r e v e a l t h a t the m a j o r i t y of student t u r n s were of minimal l e n g t h and o n l y a s m a l l p o r t i o n were of s u s t a i n e d l e n g t h . She argues t h a t ... o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o produce s u s t a i n e d output i n the second language are c r u c i a l t o the second language l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s . S u s t a i n e d t a l k p r o v i d e s both o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r v a r i e t y and c o m p l e x i t y of language use, and i t f o r c e s the l e a r n e r t o pay a t t e n t i o n t o how c o n t e n t i s expressed. T h i s suggests t h a t a t l e a s t some p o r t i o n of content l e s s o n s need t o be s t r u c t u r e d i n d i f f e r e n t ways i n o r d e r t o permit more o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r the s u s t a i n e d use of language by students (pp. 6-7). Brock (1986) found s i m i l a r r e s u l t s when l o o k i n g a t the e f f e c t s of r e f e r e n t i a l v ersus d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s i n the classroom. 31 In Swain's (1987) a n a l y s i s , she c o n s i d e r s the e f f e c t s o f f o c u s s i n g on meaning-oriented responses i n the classroom and suggests t h a t the i n p u t students r e c e i v e may be f u n c t i o n a l l y r e s t r i c t e d . I t appears t h a t the French Immersion program s t i l l has much l e a r n i n g t o do i n s t r e n g t h e n i n g i t s l i n k between content and language. S i m i l a r i m p l i c a t i o n s can be made f o r o t h e r second language programs as w e l l . She recommends t h a t ...[1] students o b t a i n language i n p u t i n i t s f u l l f u n c t i o n a l range ... [2] students must be g i v e n the o p p o r t u n i t y t o produce language i n i t s f u l l f u n c t i o n a l range ... [3] t h e r e w i l l have t o be a way of p r o v i d i n g c o n s i s t e n t feedback t o l e a r n e r s about t h e i r language e r r o r s ... [4] any s o l u t i o n w i l l have t o h e l p l e a r n e r s a t t e n d t o t h e i r language weaknesses (p. 16). Methodology i s an important i s s u e i n second language t e a c h i n g , and as Swain (1987) has p o i n t e d out, i t can c r e a t e the c o n n e c t i o n between content and language l e a r n i n g by p r o v i d i n g " c a r e f u l l y c o n t r i v e d a c t i v i t i e s , which b r i n g i n t o the cl a s s r o o m a u t h e n t i c language i n i t s f u l l f u n c t i o n a l range (Swain, p. 25). i i . Language A c r o s s the C u r r i c u l u m Cuelho (1982) looked a t the demands of language a c r o s s the c u r r i c u l u m f o r ESL students i n the secondary s c h o o l and an a l y z e d them f o r " s e l e c t e d s u b j e c t - a r e a s i n v o c a b u l a r y , r h e t o r i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , and l i n g u i s t i c s u r f a c e - s t r u c t u r e " (p. 56). She p o i n t s out the need f o r t e a c h e r s t o s h i f t t h e i r focus t o these language demands as w e l l as s p e l l i n g e r r o r s and sentence s t r u c t u r e when e v a l u a t i n g s t u d e n t s ' language a b i l i t y i n t he ESL c l a s s . She d i s c u s s e s the importance of d e v e l o p i n g 32 m o t i v a t i n g t a s k s t h a t i n c l u d e content t o encourage students t o use t h e s k i l l s she has o u t l i n e d . She concludes t h a t her approach w i l l a l l o w f o r a smoother t r a n s i t i o n t o r e g u l a r o r mainstream c l a s s e s . i i i . C o g n i t i o n and Language Lawrence (1972) looked a t w r i t i n g as a t h i n k i n g process based on the work of Jerome Bruner. The r e s u l t i n g textbook o u t l i n e s a method t h a t focusses on semantics a n d . c o g n i t i o n as a l i n k between c o n t r o l l e d and f r e e e x p o s i t o r y w r i t i n g . She s t a t e s t h a t ... the w r i t i n g p r a c t i c e i s concerned w i t h meaning, bot h i n content and through r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The c o g n i t i v e method t r e a t s w r i t i n g not as an end-p roduct t o be e v a l u a t e d and graded but as an a c t i v i t y , a p r o c e s s , which the student can l e a r n how t o accomplish. P e d a g o g i c a l l y , i t r e l i e s on a c t i v e t h i n k i n g ... (p. 3). She c o v e r s a wide range of content t o p i c s t h a t r e l a t e t o s p e c i f i c t h i n k i n g s k i l l s such as c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , comparison and c o n t r a s t , c h r o n o l o g i c a l o r d e r , cause and e f f e c t , p r e d i c t i o n and h y p o t h e s i s making. She a l s o acknowledges the d i f f e r e n c e between g e n e r a l and s p e c i f i c language. Her emphasis on v o c a b u l a r y allows students t o express t h e i r thoughts about the content i n w r i t i n g . Lawrence (1972) seems t o have developed an approach t h a t can s u c c e s s f u l l y r e l a t e language and c ontent l e a r n i n g i n w r i t i n g . Cummins (1984) looks a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p between language p r o f i c i e n c y and academic achievement. He q u e s t i o n s the assumption t h a t "the 'language p r o f i c i e n c y ' r e q u i r e d f o r L2 f a c e - t o - f a c e communication i s no d i f f e r e n t from t h a t r e q u i r e d f o r performance on an L2 cog n i t i v e / a c a d e m i c t a s k (cummins, 1984:131)." He f o r m a l i z e d two l e v e l s o f communication as b a s i c i n t e r p e r s o n a l communicative s k i l l s (BICS) and co g n i t i v e / a c a d e m i c language p r o f i c i e n c y (CALP) and then c r e a t e d a t h e o r e t i c a l framework t h a t added the dimensions of co n t e x t and c o g n i t i o n . He emphasized the need t o d i s t i n g u i s h between BICS and CALP so t h a t ESL student e v a l u a t i o n s on language p r o f i c i e n c y would not d i s c o l o u r t h e i r t r u e academic p o t e n t i a l . H i s r e c o g n i t i o n o f the BICS and CALP d i s t i n c t i o n and how i t r e l a t e s t o m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n adds another important dimension t o the complex p i c t u r e o f language and co n t e n t l e a r n i n g i n SLA. R e c e n t l y s e v e r a l p u b l i s h e r s have produced c l a s s r o o m m a t e r i a l f o r ESL students emphasizing the important o f t a s k s t h a t i n v o l v e c o g n i t i o n , content and language. Think and L i n k and D i s c o v e r i n g D i s c o u r s e both o f f e r e x e r c i s e s developed around s p e c i f i c t h i n k i n g s k i l l s r e l a t e d t o s u b j e c t matter and communication. FRAMEWORKS FOR INTEGRATING LANGUAGE AND CONTENT IN THE CLASSROOM i . The Adjunct Model S e v e r a l frameworks o r models have been developed t o l i n k language and content so t h a t ESL students w i l l have o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o l e a r n a f u l l range o f the second language. Snow and B r i n t o n (1984) use an adjunct model of language i n s t r u c t i o n i n which the language s k i l l s taught i n an ESL 34 course are c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o the content courses the students p a r t i c i p a t e i n . Another model, s h e l t e r e d l e a r n i n g , shares a common assumption w i t h the adjunct model: " s u c c e s s f u l language l e a r n i n g occurs when students are exposed t o content m a t e r i a l p r e s e n t e d i n meaningful, c o n t e x t u a l i z e d form w i t h the focus on a c q u i r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n , not on language per se" (Snow & B r i n t o n , 1984:8). In the s h e l t e r e d course, the t e a c h e r i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r both content and language. In the a d j u n c t model, the content t e a c h e r i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c o n t e n t and the. ESL t e a c h e r teaches the language. Although both are attempting t o b r i d g e the gap between content and language l e a r n i n g , they are v e r y s p e c i f i c t o t h e i r g o a l of support and do not attempt t o p r o v i d e a system f o r i n t e g r a t i o n of the two. i i . The C o g n i t i v e Academic Language L e a r n i n g Approach (CALLA) Another support approach t h a t i s designed t o b r i d g e the gap between ESL and r e g u l a r o r mainstream content c l a s s e s i s CALLA (Chamot & O'Malley, 1987). I t i s aimed a t i n t e r m e d i a t e and advanced ESL students and attempts t o broaden t h e i r academic language development through i n s t r u c t i o n i n the c o n t e n t a r e a s . Components of t h e i r d e s i g n i n c l u d e c o n t e n t -a r e a t o p i c s , language development a c t i v i t i e s and i n s t r u c t i o n i n l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g i e s . CALLA i s i n f l u e n c e d by Cummins' (1984) work which i s r e f l e c t e d i n the type of language a c t i v i t i e s suggested. CALLA appears t o be a comprehensive approach t o i t s g o a l of " s u p p l y i n g added support f o r E n g l i s h language development among LEP ( l i m i t e d E n g l i s h p r o f i c i e n t ) s t udents ..." (Chamot & O'Malley, 1987:245). 35 i i i . The Knowledge Framework The l a s t approach t o be reviewed i s the knowledge framework (Mohan, 1986). I t i n t e g r a t e s language, content and c o g n i t i o n t o a i d the te a c h e r ' s o r g a n i z a t i o n o f o b j e c t i v e s and t e a c h i n g m a t e r i a l . I t i s based on the concept of an a c t i v i t y , which i s c e n t r a l t o e d u c a t i o n , s i n c e e d u c a t i o n i n i t i a t e s the l e a r n e r i n t o the p u b l i c a c t i v i t i e s o f h i s o r her s o c i e t y . The o r g a n i z i n g framework ... i s a l s o i n t e n d e d t o be a guide t o the s t r u c t u r e o f knowledge a c r o s s the c u r r i c u l u m . But because the s t r u c t u r e o f knowledge i s a b s t r a c t , ... g r a p h i c s (are used) t o r e p r e s e n t i t and communicate about i t (p. 25). The framework encompasses s i x f a c e t s of knowledge: t h r e e t h a t r e p r e s e n t t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge s t r u c t u r e s ( c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , p r i n c i p l e s and e v a l u a t i o n ) and t h r e e t h a t r e p r e s e n t p r a c t i c a l knowledge s t r u c t u r e s ( d e s c r i p t i o n , sequence and c h o i c e ) . In d i v i d i n g i t t h i s way, Mohan, as Lawrence (1972) d i d , r e c o g n i z e s the d i s t i n c t i o n between g e n e r a l and s p e c i f i c d i s c o u r s e and c o g n i t i o n . Mohan (1986) suggests t h a t i t i s these knowledge s t r u c t u r e s t h a t are i n h e r e n t i n every a c t i v i t y t h a t one p a r t i c i p a t e s i n . The a c t i v i t y i s the content o f the l e s s o n and can be d i v i d e d i n t o the s i x boxes. In every case the boxes are i n t e r a c t i v e but the te a c h e r may choose t o focus on o n l y one o r two knowledge s t r u c t u r e s a t a time. Mohan (1986) a l s o i d e n t i f i e s and l i s t s s p e c i f i c language items r e l a t e d t o each box as the language of d e s c r i p t i o n , the language of sequence, e t c . , t h e r e f o r e d e f i n i n g an i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between language and con t e n t . G r a p h i c s are used as a way t o l e s s e n the language l o a d ( f o r example, use of t e x t , o r a l speech) and h e l p ESL l e a r n e r s 36 understand how the content i s or g a n i z e d . C a r r e l l (1985) d i s c u s s e s the importance of u s i n g g r a p h i c s t o f a c i l i t a t e r e a d i n g f o r ESL stud e n t s . Concept mapping (Novak & Godwin, 1984) uses g r a p h i c s as a way of r e l a t i n g v a r i o u s concepts t o enhance comprehension of content m a t e r i a l . Mohan (1986) not o n l y encourages the use of g r a p h i c s but has i d e n t i f i e d s p e c i f i c types o f gra p h i c designs t h a t l i n k w i t h the s p e c i f i c knowledge s t r u c t u r e s . T h i s framework makes the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p o f conten t , language and c o g n i t i o n e a s i l y a c c e s s i b l e f o r the t e a c h e r and the student. I t i s a way of o r g a n i z i n g t a s k s and u s i n g g r a p h i c s t o a i d language and content l e a r n i n g . I t appears t o be a w e l l d e f i n e d instrument t h a t can be used a t a l l l e v e l s . The ESL Resource Book Volume 1 ( E a r l y , Thew, & Wak e f i e l d , 1986) i n t r o d u c e s the knowledge framework as a b a s i s f o r d e s i g n i n g language i n s t r u c t i o n i n content areas and p r o v i d e s many examples of i t s a p p l i c a t i o n t o c u r r i c u l a . METHODOLOGY Once the content and language o f the c u r r i c u l u m i s o r g a n i z e d , the methods used t o te a c h i t must be g i v e n c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Two areas t h a t focus on i n t e r a c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s , c o n t a c t and t a s k s t r u c t u r e , are d i s c u s s e d below. i . The Contact Approach The Contact Approach (Loughrey & Smith, 1979) i s a method t h a t has been used t o g i v e ESL students an o p p o r t u n i t y t o converse w i t h a n a t i v e speaker o f E n g l i s h i n a meaningful way. 37 I t was i n f l u e n c e d by the work of Widdowson (1978), Tough (1976) and o t h e r s who b e l i e v e d i n the communicative approach t o language t e a c h i n g and focussed on language as d i s c o u r s e . The Contact Approach takes the student out of the formal s e t t i n g of the classroom and allows him/her t o e x p e r i e n c e the environment of the E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g community. Students are g i v e n community-oriented t a s k s t h a t are r e a l - l i f e i n t e r a c t i o n s between the L2 l e a r n e r and the n a t i v e speaker. Four main f e a t u r e s o u t l i n e t h i s approach i n i t s attempt t o study language w i t h i n a r e a l s o c i a l c o n t e x t : classroom p r e p a r a t i o n , the even, the t a s k s t o be completed d u r i n g the event and the feedback s e s s i o n s . With c a r e f u l p l a n n i n g of the c o n t a c t assignment, the student gains c o n f i d e n c e i n h i s / h e r a b i l i t y t o communicate w i t h n a t i v e speakers and l e a r n s v a l u a b l e feedback from the t e a c h e r r e g a r d i n g language problems he/she e x p e r i e n c e d d u r i n g the c o n t a c t . T h i s approach has been used s u c c e s s f u l l y by s h o r t - s t a y programs i n the Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia area f o r many ye a r s ( Y i l d i z , 1980) and c o n t i n u e s t o be a key technique i n promoting s i t u a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s t h a t i n v o l v e second language l e a r n e r s and n a t i v e speakers i n meaningful d i s c o u r s e . i i . S t r u c t u r e of Student Tasks Student t a s k s can be s t r u c t u r e d t o f a c i l i t a t e o r a l language (Staab, 1982). T h i s , i n t u r n , w i l l enhance the s t u d e n t ' s r e a d i n g a b i l i t y because the semantic and s y n t a c t i c , components of o r a l language are a l s o a p a r t of the r e a d i n g p r o c e s s (Goodman, 1972). An a p p r o p r i a t e method f o r d e v e l o p i n g 38 s t u d e n t s ' o r a l language a b i l i t y has been suggested by Staab (1982). She focusses on what H a l l i d a y (1975) c a l l s meaningful s i t u a t i o n s and agrees w i t h Loban's (1979) view t h a t language i s an instrument t o be used t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n r e a l events. The method she proposes i s u n i v e r s a l f o r a l l a c t i v i t i e s . I n i t i a l l y designed f o r f i r s t language l e a r n e r s , i t seems e a s i l y a daptable f o r ESL s t u d e n t s . I t c o n t a i n s f i v e b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s which i n v o l v e a s s i g n i n g a common p r o j e c t t o a group, e n s u r i n g the a c t i v i t y i s meaningful, emphasizing the pr o c e s s not the product, p l a c i n g language models i n the group ( s t r o n g e r w i t h weaker) and u s i n g t o p i c s from a c r o s s the c u r r i c u l u m . I t puts the focus on t h i n k i n g about language as one t a l k s about content, a method t h a t appears t o be complimentary t o a language and content approach. COMMENTS The l i t e r a t u r e c l e a r l y supports the view t h a t c ontent i s an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f SLA. P o s i t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o language development were seen i n many p r e v i o u s attempts i n pe d a g o g i c a l s t r a t e g i e s t o r e l a t e language and content (Marland, 1977; Herber, 1978; Coelho, 1982). A concern t h a t a r i s e s from these s t u d i e s i s t h a t the emphasis was s t i l l v e r y much language-o r i e n t e d and p r e s e n t e d a p r e c a r i o u s balance i n the view of the co n t e n t t e a c h e r . Because content t e a c h e r s d i d not view themselves as language t e a c h e r s and language t e a c h e r s d i d not view themselves as content t e a c h e r s , n e i t h e r f e l t t hey c o u l d f u l f i l each o t h e r ' s e d u c a t i o n a l mandate. T h e r e f o r e an unbalanced emphasis of e i t h e r language o r content was the 39 r e a l i t y o f c l a s s r o o m t e a c h i n g . In the language c l a s s r o o m the students were not i n v o l v e d i n - d e p t h i n content knowledge and i n the c o n t e n t c l a s s they were not engaged i n comprehensive language l e a r n i n g . Mohan's (1986) framework s h i f t e d the f u l c r u m back t o the middle, c r e a t i n g an instrument t h a t addresses some of these concerns. I t p r e s e n t s a means through which c o n t e n t and language can be taught as equal p a r t n e r s i n the e d u c a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s t h a t engage students i n l e a r n i n g . 40 Chapter Three THE METHOD A QUALITATIVE APPROACH There are two main c a t e g o r i e s of methods used t o i n v e s t i g a t e r e s e a r c h problems. Each o f f e r t h e i r own s e t of c r i t e r i a f o r c o l l e c t i n g and a n a l y z i n g data. An a p p r o p r i a t e p a i r i n g o f the method w i t h the problem, i s s u e o r q u e s t i o n t o be r e s e a r c h e d i s e s s e n t i a l . One method i s more s c i e n t i f i c a l l y based ( q u a n t i t a t i v e ) w h i l e the o t h e r method i s more d e s c r i p t i v e by d e s i g n ( q u a l i t a t i v e ) . In a q u a n t i t a t i v e approach, s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s , s t a t i s t i c s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s between co u n t a b l e c r i t e r i a p l a y a dominant r o l e . In a q u a l i t a t i v e approach, o b s e r v a t i o n s , i n t e r v i e w s , open-ended q u e s t i o n n a i r e s become the major t o o l s f o r c o l l e c t i n g d a t a . The q u a l i t a t i v e method allows the r e s e a r c h e r t o examine the p r o c e s s and c o n t e x t of an event as opposed t o f o c u s s i n g on s p e c i f i c v a r i a b l e s . The q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d i n t h i s t h e s i s i n v e s t i g a t e implementation and t a s k d e s i g n i s s u e s r e l a t e d t o the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a content-based c u r r i c u l u m i n ESL programs, an approach t o t e a c h i n g t h a t i s new t o the f i e l d of ESL and t h e r e f o r e e x p l o r a t o r y i n nature. Rather than i s o l a t e a v a r i a b l e f o r p r e c i s e measurement, the g o a l or outcome of the f o l l o w i n g r e s e a r c h f o c u s s e d on d e r i v i n g meaning about the pro c e s s of t e a c h i n g content and language from those i n v o l v e d i n the c u r r i c u l u m ' s implementation. T h e r e f o r e , a q u a l i t a t i v e 41 approach was s e l e c t e d as the method used t o i n v e s t i g a t e the r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s r e f e r r e d t o above. THE SUBJECTS T h i r t y i n s t r u c t o r s , w i t h v a l i d B r i t i s h Columbia t e a c h i n g c e r t i f i c a t e s , f i e l d - t e s t e d a content-based c u r r i c u l u m f o r a summer E n g l i s h language program o f f e r e d by a l o c a l Vancouver community c o l l e g e . A l l but f i v e i n s t r u c t o r s had taken u n i v e r s i t y courses i n ESL methodology and/or were ex p e r i e n c e d ESL t e a c h e r s . A l l were c o n s i d e r e d t o be v e r y capable t e a c h e r s and i n t e r e s t e d i n working w i t h i n t e r n a t i o n a l s t u d e n t s . Some were p u b l i c s c h o o l t e a c h e r s , o t h e r s i n s t r u c t e d ESL c l a s s e s f o r a d u l t s . For two, i t was t h e i r f i r s t independent e x p e r i e n c e i n the classroom. The 428 students who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the program were from Japan. They ranged i n age from 12 t o 23 ye a r s and were d i v i d e d i n t o two main groups: h i g h s c h o o l and c o l l e g e age. The c o r e c u r r i c u l u m was the same f o r a l l students and i n c l u d e d courses i n c o n v e r s a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s , consumerism and i n t e r n a t i o n a l c i t i z e n s h i p . The courses were w r i t t e n t o a l l o w f o r f l e x i b i l i t y and a d a p t a b i l i t y i n depth o f t o p i c and language l e v e l . Two a d d i t i o n a l courses were i n c l u d e d i n the c u r r i c u l u m , one f o r each of the two age l e v e l s . The m a j o r i t y of t he s t u d e n t s ' language l e v e l was c o n s i d e r e d t o range from lower t o upper beginner. S e v e r a l of the c o l l e g e age students were low i n t e r m e d i a t e speakers o f E n g l i s h . No students were put i n an advanced l e v e l c l a s s . A l l but f i v e c l a s s e s i n c l u d e d t h r e e weeks, o r 60 hours, of i n s t r u c t i o n . Those f i v e c l a s s e s 42 r e c e i v e d two weeks, o r 40 hours, of i n s t r u c t i o n . Although students d i d p a r t i c i p a t e i n a program e v a l u a t i o n , they were not asked t o complete a s p e c i f i c c u r r i c u l u m e v a l u a t i o n . THE ROLE OF THE RESEARCHER The d u a l r o l e o f r e s e a r c h e r and a d m i n i s t r a t o r undertaken by t h i s w r i t e r s e t s l i m i t a t i o n s on the study. In q u a n t i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h , the r e s e a r c h e r c o l l e c t s data through o b j e c t i v e measures. In simple q u a l i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h , the r e s e a r c h e r i s unknown t o the s u b j e c t s and t h e r e f o r e the s u b j e c t i v e data c o l l e c t e d i s viewed as unskewed. In a c t i o n r e s e a r c h t h e r e i s the danger of one r o l e (the a d m i n i s t r a t o r ) i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h the o t h e r (the r e s e a r c h e r ) i n t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the s u b j e c t s might o n l y g i v e p o s i t i v e feedback t o the e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e s s f o r job s e c u r i t y reasons. On the o t h e r hand, the a d m i n i s t r a t o r r o l e may i n f l u e n c e the s u b j e c t s t o i n c r e a s e t h e i r e f f o r t i n the implementation of the c u r r i c u l u m . Given these f a c t o r s , the f i n d i n g s should not be g e n e r a l i z e d t o a l a r g e r p o p u l a t i o n , but should be c o n s i d e r e d when d i s c u s s i n g o t h e r s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s . THE RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURE The r e s e a r c h d e s i g n i n v o l v e d c u r r i c u l u m development, implementation and e v a l u a t i o n . i . C u r r i c u l u m Development I n i t i a l l y , the f o l l o w i n g c u r r i c u l u m p r i n c i p l e s were e s t a b l i s h e d . They r e f l e c t content i d e a s , language development, t h i n k i n g processes and i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s . The c u r r i c u l u m w i l l o f f e r o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r students t o : 1. use E n g l i s h w h i l e l e a r n i n g about Canada i n i n t e r e s t i n g and c h a l l e n g i n g c o n t e x t s 2. i n t e g r a t e language and content w i t h i n an academic framework 3. l e a r n language items as they occur i n the n a t u r a l sequence of communication 4. develop o r a l language s k i l l s 5. develop the a b i l i t y t o d e s c r i b e , a n a l y z e and r e f l e c t about a wide range of t o p i c s 6. e x p e r i e n c e a p o s i t i v e and s u c c e s s f u l l e a r n i n g environment 7. p a r t i c i p a t e a c t i v e l y i n the program 8. t h i n k c r i t i c a l l y about North American l i f e and i n t e r n a t i o n a l concerns 9. be i n v o l v e d i n p u r p o s e f u l i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h n a t i v e speakers. The p r i n c i p l e s c l e a r l y support a content-based approach t o language l e a r n i n g . The knowledge framework (Mohan, 1986) was s e l e c t e d as the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l t o o l f o r i n t e g r a t i n g content and language. A p p r o p r i a t e content f o r s h o r t s t a y i n t e r n a t i o n a l students was then determined and support v i s u a l were c o l l e c t e d ( p i c t u r e s , hands-on o b j e c t s , e t c . ) and/or drawn. I n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s i n c l u d e d i n t e r a c t i v e and s t u d e n t - c e n t r e d approaches t o l e a r n i n g , such as jigsaw, peer t e a c h i n g and s m a l l group t a s k s . W i t h i n t h i s m i l i e u of c r i t e r i a and c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , the c u r r i c u l u m was w r i t t e n . 44 i i . C u r r i c u l u m Implementation P r o f e s s i o n a l development workshops were g i v e n t o i n s t r u c t o r s p r i o r t o t h e i r t e a c h i n g assignment. One mandatory three-h o u r s e s s i o n t h a t focussed s p e c i f i c a l l y on,the c u r r i c u l u m was h e l d f o r a l l i n s t r u c t o r s t e a c h i n g on the Summer E n g l i s h Language Program. T o p i c s i n c l u d e d such areas as background i n f o r m a t i o n on content and language; the knowledge framework; how t o use v i s u a l s as a l i n k between language and s u b j e c t matter; language and the knowledge s t r u c t u r e s ; and, i n t e r a c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s f o r the classroom. F u r t h e r o p p o r t u n i t i e s were p r o v i d e d f o r i n s t r u c t o r s t o meet w i t h the r e s e a r c h e r i n s m a l l groups t o d i s c u s s c u r r i c u l u m i s s u e s b e f o r e the b e g i n n i n g of the program. I t i s important t o note t h a t i n s t r u c t o r s were not p a i d f o r t h e i r time w h i l e a t t e n d i n g these s e s s i o n s , a l t h o u g h i t was an e x p e c t a t i o n of the program t o a t t e n d two whole group s e s s i o n s (one f o r program i n f o r m a t i o n and one f o r c u r r i c u l u m implementation). T h e r e f o r e the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f agreed t o l i m i t the number of times i n s t r u c t o r s were expected t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n whole group p r o f e s s i o n a l development. Emphasis was then p l a c e d on t h i s r e s e a r c h e r b e i n g a v a i l a b l e t o meet w i t h i n s t r u c t o r s on an i n d i v i d u a l and s m a l l group b a s i s when requested. Throughout the program, t h i s r e s e a r c h e r was a v a i l a b l e t o answer q u e s t i o n s about the c u r r i c u l u m , observe i n the classrooms o c c a s i o n a l l y , and p a r t i c i p a t e i n s e v e r a l off-campus c u r r i c u l u m a c t i v i t i e s . Ongoing support was p r o v i d e d f o r i n s t r u c t o r s i n t h i s implementation phase. 45 Because of the f a s t - p a c e d , compact nature of the program, when i n s t r u c t o r s d i d r a i s e q u e s t i o n s about s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s from the c u r r i c u l u m i t was almost c o n s i s t e n t l y j u s t b e f o r e or immediately a f t e r u s i n g those a c t i v i t i e s i n the classroom. S u r f a c e e x p l a n a t i o n s and a d v i c e was o f f e r e d a t t h a t time but r a r e l y was t h e r e an o p p o r t u n i t y t o do any i n - d e p t h e d u c a t i n g of the approach and techniques i n v o l v e d i n u s i n g the c u r r i c u l u m . The h i g h e s t degree of c u r r i c u l u m c o n s u l t a t i o n was done a t the mid- and post-program e v a l u a t i o n s e s s i o n s but even then i t was of l i m i t e d d i s c u s s i o n because of time c o n s t r a i n t s and o t h e r program commitments f o r the i n s t r u c t o r s . On an i n d i v i d u a l b a s i s , l e s s than one q u a r t e r of the i n s t r u c t o r s r e q u e s t e d a s s i s t a n c e i n c u r r i c u l u m implementation. Most i n s t r u c t o r s adapted the a c t i v i t i e s t o meet t h e i r p e r s o n a l t e a c h i n g s t y l e and the needs of t h e i r students w h i l e a t t e m p t i n g t o address the content and language approach of the c u r r i c u l u m . i i i . C u r r i c u l u m E v a l u a t i o n I n s t r u c t o r s were asked t o w r i t e comments on each page of the c u r r i c u l u m as they used i t t o ensure immediate feedback. They were encouraged t o recommend changes, h i g h l i g h t areas of. d i f f i c u l t y and i n d i c a t e those a c t i v i t i e s t h a t were s u c c e s s f u l . A s i m i l a r format was developed i n a d e s c r i p t i v e q u e s t i o n n a i r e (see Appendix D) and i n s t r u c t o r s were asked t o respond t o a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s , d i f f i c u l t i e s , successes and recommended changes i n more depth. The q u e s t i o n n a i r e tended t o generate v e r y g e n e r a l responses and t h e r e f o r e the feedback was not 46 always a p p r o p r i a t e t o the o b j e c t i v e s b e i n g e v a l u a t e d . I f t h i s were t o be repeated, i t i s recommended t h a t the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , i n a d d i t i o n t o the e x i s t i n g q u e s t i o n s , i n c l u d e d e s c r i p t i v e q u e s t i o n s r e l a t e d t o the c u r r i c u l u m p r i n c i p l e s o u t l i n e d i n t h i s c h a p t e r . Both the c u r r i c u l u m and the q u e s t i o n n a i r e were, c o l l e c t e d and used as p a r t of the r e s e a r c h data. Two c u r r i c u l u m and program e v a l u a t i o n s e s s i o n s were a l s o p r o v i d e d w i t h i n each of the t h r e e week programs. The f i r s t group (maximum number i n any one group was f o u r i n s t r u c t o r s ) e v a l u a t i o n s e s s i o n (15 minutes long) was h e l d mid-program and everyone was g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y t o comment on the program and c u r r i c u l u m t o i n i t i a t e immediate r e v i s i o n o r a d a p t a t i o n . A second group e v a l u a t i o n s e s s i o n , h e l d a t the end of the program, was a l o n g e r s e s s i o n (30-45 minutes). T o p i c s f o c u s s e d on a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the c u r r i c u l u m - i t s s t r u c t u r e , c o n t e n t and language approach - f o r the wide range of age and l e v e l o f ESL students t h a t p a r t i c i p a t e d i n i t . A l l comments from both e v a l u a t i o n s e s s i o n s were documented by tape r e c o r d e r and handwritten notes. 47 Chapter Four THE ANALYSIS A n a l y s i s of the data i s l i m i t e d i n i t s scope because of the a c t i o n r e s e a r c h r o l e of t h i s r e s e a r c h e r . E f f o r t was g i v e n t o m a i n t a i n i n g a n e u t r a l o r o b j e c t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e toward c u r r i c u l u m i s s u e s , promoting a p o s i t i v e and s u p p o r t i v e environment f o r i n s t r u c t o r s t o c o n s t r u c t i v e l y address t h e i r concerns about the c u r r i c u l u m . Yet, the d u a l r o l e of a d m i n i s t r a t o r and r e s e a r c h e r i n the SELP may have i n f l u e n c e d the c o n t e n t of the data g i v e n by the i n s t r u c t o r s . C u r r i c u l u m p r i n c i p l e s i d e n t i f i e d i n Chapter Three c r e a t e d a f o u n d a t i o n f o r the c u r r i c u l u m and Mohan's (1986) knowledge framework p r o v i d e d a s t r u c t u r e t o o r g a n i z e the c o n t e n t and language. A t another l e v e l , i n t e r a c t i v e t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s were used t o d e s i g n the t a s k s w i t h i n t h i s model. The t a s k s were s t u d e n t - c e n t r e d , r a t h e r than t e a c h e r - l e d , and f o c u s s e d on the o r a l d i s c o u r s e students needed as they worked through the p r o c e s s of the content-based t a s k . I t i s t h i s c o n t e x t of the SELP c u r r i c u l u m t h a t w i l l be the p o i n t of r e f e r e n c e i n the a n a l y s i s of the data. Questions about c u r r i c u l u m implementation and e v a l u a t i o n are r a i s e d as a r e s u l t of the a n a l y s i s . THE FINDINGS The hand notes, tape r e c o r d i n g s , w r i t t e n comments on the c u r r i c u l u m pages and the c u r r i c u l u m q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were reviewed. Because the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were completed by a l l 48 i n s t r u c t o r s on the program, they were deemed r e p r e s e n t a t i v e e v a l u a t i v e c u r r i c u l u m comments and w i l l be the major focus of the a n a l y s i s . A l l o t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t data, t h a t i s data t h a t e i t h e r supports o r c o n t r a d i c t s the q u e s t i o n n a i r e data, w i l l be i n c l u d e d i n the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n . The f i r s t q u e s t i o n on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e f e r r e d t o the • a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the c u r r i c u l u m content. I t asked i n s t r u c t o r s t o c o n s i d e r the content r e l a t i v e t o t h e i r s t u d e n t s ' i n t e r e s t i n the content (meaningfulness); l e v e l of E n g l i s h competency; and, l e n g t h of s t a y (40-60 hours of i n s t r u c t i o n ) . T a b l e I shows the r e s u l t s o f the data c o l l e c t e d . T able I App r o p r i a t e n e s s of C u r r i c u l u m Content F a c t o r s S u p p o r t i v e Not S u p p o r t i v e R e l a t i v e t o High School I n s t r u c t o r s C o l l e g e I n s t r u c t o r s High School I n s t r u c t o r s C o l l e g e I n s t r u c t o r s the group of students (meaningful-ness) 14 16 0 0 t h e i r l e v e l of E n g l i s h competency 3 10 11 6 t h e i r l e n g t h o f s t a y (40-60 hrs o f i n s t r u c t i o n 2 12 12 4 49 I n s t r u c t o r s supported the s e l e c t e d t o p i c s found i n the c u r r i c u l u m but r a i s e d some concerns about the l e v e l of language d i f f i c u l t y , e s p e c i a l l y f o r the h i g h s c h o o l s t u d e n t s . I n s t r u c t o r s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e i r students d i d not have what the y saw as the n e c e s s a r y v o c a b u l a r y t o engage i n d i s c u s s i o n about some of these t o p i c s . S e v e r a l i n s t r u c t o r s viewed some of the concepts w i t h i n the a c t i v i t i e s as too a b s t r a c t and t h e r e f o r e too d i f f i c u l t f o r students a t the lower language l e v e l s . The a c t i v i t i e s t h a t were more c o n c r e t e seemed t o be g e n e r a l l y more s u c c e s s f u l . The number of hours i n the program r e l a t e d t o the amount of content i n s t r u c t o r s c o u l d cover and those h i g h s c h o o l groups w i t h fewer program hours and w i t h students a t a lower language l e v e l d i d not support the amount o f c o n t e n t as a p p r o p r i a t e . The second main q u e s t i o n of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e asked i n s t r u c t o r s to r d i s c u s s the successes and d i f f i c u l t i e s o f the c u r r i c u l u m , f i r s t f o r themselves and then f o r t h e i r s t u d e n t s . The f o l l o w i n g main themes were i d e n t i f i e d from the data c o l l e c t e d from q u e s t i o n two and are shown i n Tables I I and I I I : 50 Table I I Successes and D i f f i c u l t i e s o f C u r r i c u l u m f o r I n s t r u c t o r s F a c t o r s Successes D i f f i c u l t i e s High School I n s t r u c t o r s C o l l e g e I n s t r u c t o r s High School I n s t r u c t o r s C o l l e g e I n s t r u c t o r s V o c a b u l a r y Development 7 14 7 2 E l i c i t i n g S p e c i f i c O r a l Language 10 13 4 3 L i n k i n g Content and Language 4 6 10 10 Meaningful Tasks 11 13 3 3 D i f f i c u l t y o f Tasks 5 14 9 2 Group Work 14 16 0 0 Use o f V i s u a l s 10 12 4 4 51 Table I I I Successes and D i f f i c u l t i e s o f C u r r i c u l u m f o r Students from the I n s t r u c t o r ' s P e r s p e c t i v e F a c t o r s Successes D i f f i c u l t i e s High School I n s t r u c t o r s C o l l e g e I n s t r u c t o r s High School I n s t r u c t o r s C o l l e g e I n s t r u c t o r s V o c a b u l a r y Development 7 14 7 2 E l i c i t i n g S p e c i f i c O r a l Language 4 13 10 3 L i n k i n g Content and Language 4 6 10 10 Meaningful Tasks 11 13 3 3 D i f f i c u l t y o f Tasks 3 8 11 8 Group Work 9 10 5 6 Use o f V i s u a l s 10 12 4 4 F o r 26 of the 30 i n s t r u c t o r s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s study, the i s s u e s t h e y r a i s e d r e l a t e d t o t a s k d e s i g n . The o t h e r area of concern i d e n t i f i e d by f o u r i n s t r u c t o r s f o c u s s e d on the non-s e q u e n t i a l development of language s k i l l s i n content-based language l e a r n i n g . Both t a s k d e s i g n and n o n - s e q u e n t i a l 52 language development w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n the a n a l y s i s of the d a t a . The r e s u l t s of p a r t s a and b of q u e s t i o n 2 d i f f e r i n o n l y t h r e e a r e a s . In a n a l y z i n g the data, a t t e n t i o n w i l l be g i v e n • t o these t h r e e areas i n the d i s c u s s i o n of the f i n d i n g s . The e v a l u a t i o n comments r e l a t i n g t o t a s k d e s i g n were c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o seven areas. Three areas speak t o i s s u e s i n v o l v i n g t a s k d e s i g n and language: v o c a b u l a r y , e l i c i t i n g s p e c i f i c language and l i n k i n g content and language. The o t h e r s r e f e r t o aspects of t a s k d e s i g n t h a t i n c l u d e m a i n i n g f u l n e s s , t a s k d i f f i c u l t y , group work and use of v i s u a l s . These t a s k d e s i g n f a c t o r s w i l l form the b a s i s of the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n . i . Task Design and i t s R e l a t i o n s h i p t o Teaching Language a. V o c a b u l a r y V o c a b u l a r y l e v e l was a t o p i c t h a t emerged f r e q u e n t l y as c a u s i n g d i f f i c u l t y i n implementing the c u r r i c u l u m and c o m p l e t i n g the student t a s k s as designed. F i g u r e 4 shows t h a t c o l l e g e i n s t r u c t o r s f e l t they were s u c c e s s f u l i n d e v e l o p i n g s t u d e n t s ' v o c a b u l a r i e s such t h a t they c o u l d engage i n the c u r r i c u l u m t a s k s . Others f e l t they had d i f f i c u l t y b u i l d i n g s t u d e n t s ' v o c a b u l a r i e s t o a l e v e l t h a t would enable students t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the a c t i v i t i e s . Comments such as, the v o c a b u l a r y the students were expected t o use was too d i f f i c u l t ... my students d i d n ' t have the v o c a b u l a r y they needed t o complete the t a s k t h e r e were too many new words a l l a t once 53 would suggest a need t o develop v o c a b u l a r y more s y s t e m a t i c a l l y f o r a wider range of E n g l i s h p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s . S a v i l l e -T r o i k e (1984) r e c o g n i z e s the c o n t r i b u t i o n of v o c a b u l a r y knowledge i n second language competency and s t a t e s t h a t i t s h o u l d be c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o the content o r t o p i c b e i n g s t u d i e s . The a c t i v i t y , EATING IN THE CAFETERIA (see Appendix D), was d i f f i c u l t f o r low l e v e l language students because they were not f a m i l i a r w i t h the v o c a b u l a r y they needed t o complete the a c t i v i t y . High s c h o o l students r e p o r t e d l y had d i f f i c u l t y w i t h the a c t i v i t y EXPLORING CANADA f o r the same reason. Some extended v o c a b u l a r y b u i l d i n g t a s k s need t o be done b e f o r e l e s s e r language p r o f i c i e n t students attempt t h i s t a s k . I n t r o d u c t o r y , p i c t u r e naming and c l a s s i f y i n g t a s k s d i d not seem t o be enough f o r some of these students because new v o c a b u l a r y needed t o be l e a r n e d more thoroughly. For some students the concepts were a l s o new and t h i s added t o the c o n f u s i o n o f attempting t o master new v o c a b u l a r y and a new concept a t the same time. The t a s k s w i t h i n the a c t i v i t y need t o a l l o w students t o work w i t h the content and s t r u c t u r e v o c a b u l a r y i n a v a r i e t y of ways so t h a t they g a i n c o n f i d e n c e , have an o p p o r t u n i t y t o understand the concept b e i n g p r e s e n t e d and develop some competency i n u s i n g the language. In the a c t i v i t y , EATING IN THE CAFETERIA, one of the t a s k s was t o c l a s s i f y d i f f e r e n t foods f o r d i f f e r e n t meals i n Canada and compare t h i s t o Japan. Even though a c h a r t was p r o v i d e d the l e s s o n guide d i d not c l e a r l y suggest t o the t e a c h e r t h a t students work w i t h the s t r u c t u r e v o c a b u l a r y ( f o r example, ... i s a type of ... food; 54 b r e a k f a s t u s u a l l y c o n s i s t s of ...) i n a v a r i e t y of ways t o show t h e i r u nderstanding of both the content and the language. b. E l i c i t i n g S p e c i f i c Language The t a s k s were o r i g i n a l l y designed t o e l i c i t s p e c i f i c language from the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l framework of the c u r r i c u l u m . A l t h o u g h t h i s u nderstanding was c l e a r t o the r e s e a r c h e r , i t posed many problems f o r some of the i n s t r u c t o r s because they were u n f a m i l i a r w i t h the knowledge framework. Some of the comments were as f o l l o w s : ... I d i d n ' t understand what language I was supposed t o t e a c h the language component was too vague ... I want t o know more s p e c i f i c a l l y what language I'm supposed t o be t e a c h i n g need more g u i d e l i n e s f o r the language p a r t of the l e s s o n s These comments suggest t h a t the t e a c h e r s s t i l l t h i n k they are f e e d i n g the students words and sentence p a t t e r n s , r a t h e r than c r e a t i n g s i t u a t i o n s where c e r t a i n knowledge s t r u c t u r e s need t o be expressed, and then take an 'informed' l e a d from student responses. More i n - s e r v i c e f o r i n s t r u c t o r s i s n e c e s s a r y f o r working w i t h language i n t h i s way. C l e a r e r g u i d e l i n e s f o r v o c a b u l a r y and language items need t o be b u i l t i n t o the c u r r i c u l u m . The development of an i n t r o d u c t o r y a c t i v i t y w i l l a i d i n s t r u c t o r s i n t h i s r e s p e c t . As w e l l , t e a c h e r r e f e r e n c e m a t e r i a l s t h a t r e l a t e t o the language i n each of the knowledge s t r u c t u r e s must be i d e n t i f i e d . Once i n s t r u c t o r s become f a m i l i a r w i t h t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n , they w i l l be a b l e t o work through the language demands of the t a s k s more e a s i l y . As Staab (1986) has shown, ta s k s can be designed t o e l i c i t , but 55 not n e c e s s a r i l y t e a c h , s p e c i f i c kinds of language. I t i s an o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s c u r r i c u l u m t h a t students have o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o use a l l s t r u c t u r e s i n the framework. T h e r e f o r e t a s k s must be desi g n e d t o i n c l u d e a t l e a s t the s i x kinds of language i d e n t i f i e d . A comparison of F i g u r e s 4 and 5 i n d i c a t e t h a t although many o f the i n s t r u c t o r s f e l t they were s u c c e s s f u l l y attempting t o e l i c i t s p e c i f i c o r a l language, the h i g h s c h o o l students were h a v i n g more d i f f i c u l t y than the c o l l e g e age s t u d e n t s . T h i s seems t o be a n a t u r a l occurrence g i v e n the g e n e r a l l y lower language l e v e l o f the students and l a c k of ex p e r i e n c e i n the second language usage. c. L i n k i n g Content and Language The content-based c u r r i c u l u m was designed t o promote both language l e a r n i n g and content l e a r n i n g . The i n i t i a l t a s k s were w r i t t e n t o p r o v i d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o t a l k about the c o n t e n t . Many v i s u a l s were i n c l u d e d as support f o r the c o n c e p t u a l understanding of the content. Yet i n s t r u c t o r e v a l u a t i o n s , as shown i n F i g u r e 4, i n d i c a t e d a d i f f i c u l t y f o r many t o l i n k language and content t o g e t h e r . Some comments are as f o l l o w s : ... I knew what the content was but I c o u l d n ' t understand what the language component was ... i t was so easy t o focus on what the students were s a y i n g but d i f f i c u l t t o l i s t e n t o how they were s a y i n g i t ... I need t o t e a c h language or content but i t ' s too d i f f i c u l t t o do both a t the same time The e v a l u a t i o n s demonstrate t h a t i t was not enough t o p r o v i d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o t a l k about t o p i c s and hope t h a t 56 i n s t r u c t o r s c o u l d i d e n t i f y problem areas when the t a l k broke down. The c o n t r i v e d nature of the l e s s o n a g a i n becomes ne c e s s a r y as students need t o be taught both the what and how of ' t a l k ' . Mohan (1986) and E a r l y (Vancouver School Board P r o j e c t , Funds F o r E x c e l l e n c e ) use g r a p h i c s as a s t r u c t u r e t o l i n k t he content and language. V i s u a l s o f many types ( c h a r t s , p i c t u r e s , f i l m s , concept mapping) a s s i s t the s t u d e n t s ' c o n c e p t u a l understanding of the content and suggest the s t r u c t u r a l o r r h e t o r i c a l v o c a b u l a r y t h a t r e l a t e s t o the way the c o n t e n t i s b e i n g expressed i n the v i s u a l . In t h i s way language i s i n t e g r a t e d w i t h content and students can t a l k about ' r e a l ' t o p i c s i n a c o n t r i v e d but a u t h e n t i c way. D e s p i t e the many g r a p h i c s t h a t were p r o v i d e d i n the c u r r i c u l u m , i t seems c l e a r t h a t many d i d not understand how t o use them. d. Meaningful Tasks The t o p i c s o f the i n i t i a l a c t i v i t i e s were chosen because o f t h e i r a u t h e n t i c i t y t o r e a l s i t u a t i o n s students might f i n d themselves i n (eg. a s k i n g f o r d i r e c t i o n t o a s p e c i f i c l o c a t i o n ) and because of t h e i r t o p i c a l i n t e r e s t t o v i s i t i n g f o r e i g n students (eg. c u l t u r a l p e r s p e c t i v e s o f North America). For the most p a r t , as e x e m p l i f i e d i n F i g u r e 4, the c h o i c e o f con t e n t and s i t u a t i o n s were l i s t e d as a p p r o p r i a t e i n i n s t r u c t o r e v a l u a t i o n s . S e v e r a l o b s e r v a t i o n s f o l l o w : many of the a c t i v i t i e s gave the students i n f o r m a t i o n they needed t o know ... they (students) r e a l l y l i k e d the c o n t a c t assignment, i t gave them a ' r e a l ' reason t o t a l k t o n a t i v e speakers most of the a c t i v i t i e s were i n t e r e s t i n g t o stu d e n t s , e s p e c i a l l y the food and shopping t a s k s 57 EATING IN THE CAFETERIA was good but needs another dimension t o broaden i t s scope ... I f i n d i t hard t o p r e d i c t the language my students w i l l need and use because the s i t u a t i o n i s complex and o f f e r s o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r many d i f f e r e n t responses Although some t o p i c s d i d not appeal t o a l l s t u d e n t s , i t i s f e l t t h a t ' r e a l w o rld' a c t i v i t i e s were most meaningful t o the m a j o r i t y of students i n v o l v e d i n the program and t h e r e f o r e f a c i l i t a t e d g r e a t e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the t a s k s o f f e r e d and enhanced SLA. As w e l l as b e i n g meaningful, Mohan (1986) recommends the* t e a c h i n g of a c t i v i t i e s as a way of encompassing the l a r g e r speech s i t u a t i o n (top down) r a t h e r than l e a r n i n g i s o l a t e d language items (bottom up). In t h i s way when students are i n v o l v e d i n an a c t i v i t y they experience a more complete p i c t u r e of the v a r i o u s f u n c t i o n s , n o t i o n s and s p e c i f i c language items t h a t make up t h a t p i c t u r e . Although EATING IN THE CAFETERIA i s viewed as a s i t u a t i o n , i t was too s p e c i f i c and needed another t o p i c r e l a t i n g t o a broader p e r s p e c t i v e of food. Swain (1987) argues f o r the need of a u t h e n t i c i t y , though c o n t r i v e d , t o make t a s k s more meaningful t o s t u d e n t s . In t h i s study t e a c h e r s s t a t e d t h a t t a s k s i n v o l v i n g t a l k w i t h n a t i v e speakers f o r a s p e c i f i c purpose ( d i r e c t i o n s , i n t e r v i e w , survey) were the most s u c c e s s f u l . The need f o r s t r u c t u r e d language and content t a s k s i s important but o f t e n d i f f i c u l t w i t h ' r e a l w o r l d ' a c t i v i t i e s because of the numerous language p o s s i b i l i t i e s i t o f f e r s . EATING IN THE CAFETERIA, CONDUCTING SURVEYS and MULTICULTURALISM IN CANADA are examples of such 58 a c t i v i t i e s from the SELP c u r r i c u l u m , although some v o c a b u l a r y i s o b v i o u s l y p r e d i c t a b l e . e. Task D i f f i c u l t y Tasks were designed t o e l i c i t simple and complex responses, c h a l l e n g i n g a wide v a r i e t y of l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s . S tudents, a t a l l competency l e v e l s , were g i v e n t a s k s t h a t r e f l e c t e d a s p e c t s of a l l s i x knowledge s t r u c t u r e s (Mohan, 1986) a t t h e b e g i n n i n g of the program w i t h l i t t l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r the i n c r e a s i n g l y complex c o g n i t i v e demands i n h e r e n t i n the s t r u c t u r e of s i t u a t i o n s o r t o p i c s . The r e s u l t s shown i n F i g u r e s 4 and 5 i n d i c a t e t h a t the i n s t r u c t o r s and students a t the c o l l e g e l e v e l appeared t o have more success but i n both cases, the students had more d i f f i c u l t y working i n complex t a s k s than the i n s t r u c t o r s had t e a c h i n g them. The e f f e c t s are r e f l e c t e d i n these comments: some t a s k s were j u s t too d i f f i c u l t f o r my students c h o i c e and e v a l u a t i o n on the f i r s t day - my students c o u l d n ' t handle i t e x p r e s s i n g d e c i s i o n s and o p i n i o n s i s uncomfortable and d i f f i c u l t f o r many of my s t u d e n t s , I t h i n k t h e i r c u l t u r a l background i s i n f l u e n c i n g t h i s a t t i t u d e C l e a r l y the i n s t r u c t o r s ' e v a l u a t i o n s i n d i c a t e t h a t the l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y i s an important f a c t o r when d e s i g n i n g t a s k s and t h a t more than v o c a b u l a r y development i s i n v o l v e d . One has t o q u e s t i o n what i t was about the t a s k t h a t students c o u l d not handle. Were the v i s u a l s a p p r o p r i a t e t o the content? Were the t e a c h i n g techniques a p p r o p r i a t e t o the l e v e l o f language of the students? One must c o n s i d e r 59 c a r e f u l l y the many f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n s i t u a t i o n s s i m i l a r t o those i n d i c a t e d i n the comments. The EATING IN THE CAFETERIA a c t i v i t y i n v o l v e d students i n making and e x p r e s s i n g d e c i s i o n . Brown e t a l . (1984) suggest t h a t some t a s k s are more d i f f i c u l t than o t h e r s and l i s t s t a t i c , dynamic and a b s t r a c t as the order of c o m p l e x i t y i n t a s k d e s i g n . The d e f i n i t i o n of a b s t r a c t i s s i m i l a r t o c h o i c e / e v a l u a t i o n i n the knowledge framework and i s evidenced i n the t a s k i n v o l v i n g the l u n c h budget. In r e v i e w i n g the a c t i v i t y , i t i s r e c o g n i z e d t h a t the focus i s a b s t r a c t , w i t h l i t t l e emphasis on the s t a t i c t a s k of d e s c r i b i n g the food p i c t u r e s . Other a c t i v i t i e s from the SELP c u r r i c u l u m t h a t f o l l o w e d t h i s p a t t e r n and were of concern t o i n s t r u c t o r s were: IDENTIFYING INTERNATIONAL ISSUES AND SHARING THOUGHTS ON THE FUTURE and CONDUCTING SURVEYS. f. Group Work A l l a c t i v i t i e s i n the c u r r i c u l u m were based on p a i r e d and s m a l l group work, f o c u s s i n g on student i n t e r a c t i o n . F o r the most p a r t , the t a s k d e s i g n met i t s o b j e c t i v e s and i n s t r u c t o r s f e l t t h i s was a good approach as i n d i c a t e d i n F i g u r e 4. Some. of the i n s t r u c t o r feedback was as f o l l o w s : p a i r e d and s m a l l group a c t i v i t i e s worked w e l l I l i k e d the i d e a of the students b e i n g a c t i v e l y i n v o l v e d i n t h e i r l e a r n i n g i t was good t o see the students h e l p each o t h e r w i t h the ideas and the language some students dominated s m a l l group d i s c u s s i o n w h i l e o t h e r s s a i d n o t h i n g some of them spoke too much Japanese when they were speaking w i t h t h e i r f r i e n d s some found ways t o complete the t a s k without speaking - they each d i d t h e i r own s e c t i o n 60 Many i s s u e s are r a i s e d here. Is language p r o f i c i e n c y the o n l y f a c t o r r e s u l t i n g i n the behaviour d e s c r i b e d above? How does p e r s o n a l i t y and/or c u l t u r a l background i n f l u e n c e behaviour i n language l e a r n i n g ? When the students spoke Japanese, were they on task? I f so, does t h a t i n t e r f e r e w i t h o r enhance language l e a r n i n g ? There are s t i l l many unanswered q u e s t i o n s but the comments seem t o suggest t h a t a l t h o u g h group work i s seen as s u c c e s s f u l , the c a r e f u l s t r u c t u r e of the t a s k i s important t o ensure maximum student p a r t i c i p a t i o n and, t h e r e f o r e , maximum output of E n g l i s h language. Long and P o r t e r ' s (1985) review of the l i t e r a t u r e supports the use of group work i n SLA i n terms of i t s o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r n e g o t i a t i o n of meaning. S e v e r a l of the students they r e p o r t suggest p a i r e d two-way t a s k s as o p t i m a l f o r output and i n t e r a c t i o n , a p e r s p e c t i v e they share i n SLA t h e o r y . Others f e e l t h a t students should be i n v o l v e d w i t h the language of t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g (Mohan, c l a s s handout, ENED. 5 0 8 , 1988) t o re a c h t h e i r g o a l of SLA. In t h i s a r e a group work i s a l s o recommended and focusses on such s t r u c t u r e d approaches as c o o p e r a t i v e l e a r n i n g and peer t e a c h i n g . In the i n i t i a l a c t i v i t y , EATING IN THE CAFETERIA, group work and p a i r e d two-way d e s i g n were used f o r the t a s k about the lunc h budget. F o r those students who had the v o c a b u l a r y , i t worked w e l l . P i c a (1987) suggests t h a t decision-making a c t i v i t i e s and i n f o r m a t i o n exchange t a s k s p r o v i d e a more balanced o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s and d i m i n i s h e s the p o s s i b i l i t y o f dominance w i t h i n the group. The o t h e r problems 61 t h a t sometimes occur w i t h group work, as mentioned i n e v a l u a t i o n s l i s t e d above, can be handled w i t h i n s t r u c t o r support, i n t e r e s t and encouragement t o improve these s i t u a t i o n s and e l i c i t a p p r o p r i a t e d i s c o u r s e . g. Use of V i s u a l s S e v e r a l i n s t r u c t o r s q u e s t i o n e d why v i s u a l s , such as f l o w c h a r t s , c l a s s i f i c a t i o n g r a p h i c s and d e c i s i o n t r e e s , were employed so f r e q u e n t l y i n the c u r r i c u l u m . They v o i c e d d i f f i c u l t y i n u s i n g a n y t h i n g but p i c t u r e s t o e l i c i t language and t h e r e f o r e avoided u s i n g o t h e r g r a p h i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of i d e a s found i n the c u r r i c u l u m . Novak and Gowin (1984) d i s c u s s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between g r a p h i c s and l e a r n i n g , f o c u s s i n g on the use o f concept mapping t o a s s i s t students i n t h e i r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the i n f o r m a t i o n and the language t h a t i s needed t o t a l k about t o p i c s . Mohan (1986) r e f e r s t o key v i s u a l s as the important l i n k between content and language and o f f e r s s uggestions as t o how the use of v i s u a l s can promote language a c q u i s i t i o n . The use of g r a p h i c s i n SLA i s new t e r r i t o r y t o be e x p l o r e d , but i t seems t h a t both the i n s t r u c t o r and the students need t o be shown how t o use v i s u a l s t o maximize language and content l e a r n i n g . Once the p o t e n t i a l i s r e c o g n i z e d , v i s u a l s w i l l be an i n t e g r a l p a r t of a l l language and content l e a r n i n g . i i . Other F i n d i n g s Four i n s t r u c t o r s were concerned about language development and f e l t t h e r e was a need f o r a s e q u e n t i a l l i s t of language items t o be covered i n the c u r r i c u l u m . In an 62 i n t e g r a t e d , content-based approach, language i s not taught i n a s e q u e n t i a l manner. I n s t r u c t o r s must have a s o l i d u n d e r s t a n d i n g the language the t a s k s w i l l demand of the s t u d e n t s , but must be f l e x i b l e t o respond t o the s t u d e n t s ' language needs as they e n t e r i n t o d i s c u s s i o n s about t o p i c s . The u n d e r l y i n g concern i s the assumption t h a t language i s l e a r n e d through the t e a c h i n g of s e q u e n t i a l language items. T h i s has been c a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n by c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h by Krashen (1980) and o t h e r s . Content-based language t e a c h i n g , which we are p u r s u i n g here, supports the view of non-s e q u e n t i a l language development, although i t i s r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h i s i s s t i l l an i s s u e f o r many i n s t r u c t o r s i n ESL. A f u r t h e r review of the data i d e n t i f i e d i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t o r s and how they responded t o q u e s t i o n 2 i n F i g u r e 4. Two q u e s t i o n s came t o mind: were t h e r e any i n s t r u c t o r s t h a t p l a c e d themselves c o n s i s t e n t l y i n the s u c c e s s f u l category? I f so, how d i d t h e y d i f f e r i n t h e i r understanding of the c u r r i c u l u m approach, d e s i g n and procedures from o t h e r i n s t r u c t o r s ? Because s p e c i f i c data was not c o l l e c t e d r e g a r d i n g t h e s e two q u e s t i o n s , the d i s c u s s i o n t h a t f o l l o w s i s based on the r e f l e c t i v e comments of t h i s r e s e a r c h e r , c u r r i c u l u m recommendations from i n s t r u c t o r s and any p e r t i n e n t data c o l l e c t e d d u r i n g the program's o p e r a t i o n . One l e v e l of the f i n d i n g s has been a n a l y z e d e a r l i e r i n t h i s c h a p t e r . A t another l e v e l , t h e r e seems t o be two groups o f t e a c h e r s t h a t can be i d e n t i f i e d . One group of s i x i n s t r u c t o r s c o n s i s t e n t l y s t a t e d successes w i t h the c u r r i c u l u m and c o n t r i b u t e d c o n s t r u c t i v e c r i t i c i s m s on both the c u r r i c u l u m 63 pages and the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . T h e i r students ranged i n language l e v e l from low t o h i g h i n t e r m e d i a t e . I n s t r u c t o r s ' comments r e f l e c t e d concerns w i t h the d e s i g n of v a r i o u s tasks and t h e y o f f e r e d s p e c i f i c suggestions and i d e a s f o r improvement as a r e s u l t of t h e i r own a d a p t a t i o n s t o the m a t e r i a l s i n the c u r r i c u l u m . For example, one i n s t r u c t o r i n t h i s group c r e a t e d a key v i s u a l , which he had developed f o r h i s low l e v e l s t u d e n t s , t o go w i t h a s t o r y i n the a c t i v i t y CURRENT TOPICS. The key v i s u a l was i n c l u d e d i n the e v a l u a t i o n feedback. Other comments from t h i s group f o l l o w : my c l a s s was a t a b a s i c language l e v e l so I adapted where I c o u l d and added b i t s of my own t o meet my s t u d e n t s ' needs. I was content w i t h the c u r r i c u l u m whatever I c o u l d reduce t o a game format was w e l l - r e c e i v e d ... I t h i n k we s t i l l need some m a t e r i a l s worked out i n more d e t a i l ... I designed two g r a p h i c s t o h e l p get a t the i n f o r m a t i o n the students d i d n ' t have d i f f i c u l t y w i t h the c u r r i c u l u m and I found i t a good b a s i s ... I supplemented some areas T h i s group of i n s t r u c t o r s seemed t o be a b l e t o adapt and supplement m a t e r i a l s s u c c e s s f u l l y to meet t h e i r s t u d e n t s ' needs. The remaining 24 i n s t r u c t o r s form the second group and they r a i s e a v a r i e t y of concerns about the c u r r i c u l u m , as i d e n t i f i e d e a r l i e r i n t h i s c hapter, w i t h l i t t l e feedback i n terms o f i d e a s o r suggestions f o r improvement. Tab l e IV, C u r r i c u l u m Recommendations, as shown below, supports t h i s n o t i o n . 64 Table IV C u r r i c u l u m Recommendations Comments Number of Responses Include more low l e v e l v o c a b u l a r y b u i l d i n g e x e r c i s e s 25 Give samples o f language t h a t can be used w i t h v i s u a l s on the student handouts 30 Show more c l e a r l y i n a c t i v i t i e s how language and cont e n t i s handled w i t h i n the t a s k 30 I d e n t i f y t a s k d i f f i c u l t y by some s o r t o f l e v e l s 5 P r o v i d e a l i s t o f language items r e l a t e d t o the Knowledge Framework o r more background r e s o u r c e m a t e r i a l s 30 P r o v i d e more i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g on content and language s t r a t e g i e s , use of g r a p h i c s 30 A l l s i x areas i d e n t i f i e d i n Table IV c o u l d e a s i l y be i n t e r p r e t e d as implementation and/or t a s k d e s i g n i s s u e s . T h e r e f o r e b e i n g a b l e t o i d e n t i f y and c a t e g o r i z e the i n s t r u c t o r s i n t o two groups f a c i l i t a t e s the a n a l y s i s o f data. I t seems t h a t the f i r s t group was much more comfortable w i t h t h e c u r r i c u l u m and, from c l o s e knowledge of those i n s t r u c t o r s and p e r s o n a l o b s e r v a t i o n s , t h i s r e s e a r c h e r 65 b e l i e v e s t h a t they were more f a m i l i a r w i t h the approach and e x p e c t a t i o n s o f a content-based c u r r i c u l u m , as w e l l as b e i n g v e r y e x p e r i e n c e d ESL i n s t r u c t o r s . T h e r e f o r e , i t i s f e l t t h a t t h e i r q u e s t i o n n a i r e comments were more r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of e v a l u a t i o n i s s u e s than implementation i s s u e s . The o t h e r group, though, were new t o u s i n g the Framework and the i n t e r a c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s i n h e r e n t i n the d e s i g n o f the t a s k s . T h i s c o m p l i c a t e s the a n a l y s i s o f data c o l l e c t e d because t h e r e seem t o be two i s s u e s a t work - one of implementation and one of t a s k d e s i g n . Were t h e i r concerns about the t a s k s a r e s u l t o f not b e i n g f a m i l i a r w i t h the Framework and t h e r e f o r e unsure of how t o implement i t ? Or, were t h e i r concerns t r u l y r e f l e c t i v e o f d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h t a s k design? Some of the comments about d i f f i c u l t i e s and u n s u c c e s s f u l attempts w i t h a c t i v i t i e s i n the c u r r i c u l u m from group two emphasize the importance of implementation s t r a t e g i e s and the r o l e they p l a y i n s u c c e s s f u l programming. 66 Chapter F i v e CONCLUSION THE QUESTION: IS CONTENT-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING AN EFFECTIVE APPROACH FOR ESL CURRICULA? T h i s document examines a content-based c u r r i c u l u m f o r a s h o r t s t a y ESL program and, from a t e a c h i n g p e r s p e c t i v e , r e p o r t s on i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r students l e a r n i n g a second language. T h i s c u r r i c u l u m approach goes beyond a t r a d i t i o n a l view o f language t e a c h i n g and encompasses a broader p e r s p e c t i v e of language e d u c a t i o n . i . Summary of F i n d i n g s : I n s t r u c t o r Support The i n s t r u c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n t h i s study responded p o s i t i v e l y t o the c u r r i c u l u m p r i n c i p l e s and supported a content-based approach t o language l e a r n i n g . The recommendations, as shown i n T a b l e IV, d i d not r e f l e c t major ' changes t o the c u r r i c u l u m . Most of the i n s t r u c t o r s ' concerns f o c u s s e d on implementation s t r a t e g i e s , t h a t i s , they asked f o r more s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e c h n i q u e s , i n c r e a s e d background knowledge of the approach used and i n - d e p t h language support t o a s s i s t them i n a c t u a l i z i n g the goals and p r i n c i p l e s of the c u r r i c u l u m . The o t h e r concerns, r a i s e d a t the t a s k d e s i g n l e v e l , were recommendations f o r making the SELP c u r r i c u l u m even more e f f e c t i v e f o r second language l e a r n e r s . From t h i s r e s e a r c h e r ' s o b s e r v a t i o n s and notes, the message of most i n s t r u c t o r s c l e a r l y supported content-based language t e a c h i n g . In the d i s c u s s i o n s they h i g h l i g h t e d student c o n t a c t w i t h n a t i v e speakers, e s p e c i a l l y when the c o n t a c t assignments c o u l d be o r g a n i z e d w i t h i n the Framework. The importance of c u l t u r e was a l s o a c e n t r a l theme i n i n s t r u c t o r conferences and they supported the way c u l t u r e was r e c o g n i z e d and i n c l u d e d i n the t e a c h i n g process w i t h i n the c u r r i c u l u m . G e n e r a l l y , the i n s t r u c t o r s ' comments gave support and encouragement, t o not o n l y c o n t i n u e w i t h the c u r r i c u l u m , but t o b u i l d on i t and s t r e n g t h e n what i s a l r e a d y t h e r e . i i . Summary of Current Research Support Cummins' (1984) d i s t i n c t i o n between communicative competence of s o c i a l speech and t h a t of academic p r o f i c i e n c y adds a s i g n i f i c a n t dimension t o language pedagogy. T h i s supports a content-based approach and r e c o g n i z e s the need t o go beyond c o n v e r s a t i o n a l gambits, f u n c t i o n a l d i s c o u r s e and sentence p a t t e r n s when l e a r n i n g language. The emphasis on s i t u a t i o n s i n meaningful c o n t e x t s , r a t h e r than speech events and language items s t u d i e d i n i s o l a t i o n , p r e s e n t s a new p e r s p e c t i v e of language. Not o n l y does i t i n v o l v e a communicative grammar but a l s o a language r e l a t e d t o s p e c i f i c knowledge s t r u c t u r e s (Mohan, 1986). S t r u c t u r a l language w i t h i n the knowledge s t r u c t u r e s , as w e l l as from the c o n t e n t , i s i d e n t i f i e d as e s s e n t i a l i n language and l e a r n i n g . The s i g n i f i c a n c e of s t r u c t u r i n g t a s k s c a r e f u l l y and the use o f the c o n t a c t approach seem v i a b l e methods t o produce and encourage the s u s t a i n e d t a l k (Swain, 1987) t h a t appears t o be so e s s e n t i a l t o SLA. 68 The knowledge framework f a c i l i t a t e s these components t o i n t e r a c t p o s i t i v e l y p r o v i d i n g an e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g f o r ESL students a t a l l l e v e l s and i n t e r e s t s , i n c l u d i n g those i n v o l v e d i n a s h o r t s t a y program. I f H a l l i d a y ' s (1978) view i s i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h i s c u r r i c u l u m d e s i g n through course c o n t e n t , s o c i o - c u l t u r a l aspects of the language w i l l be l e a r n e d as students p a r t i c i p a t e i n the program. T h i s , then, i s seen as meeting the predetermined o b j e c t i v e s o f a co n t e n t -based s h o r t - s t a y E n g l i s h language program f o r v i s i t i n g f o r e i g n s t u d e n t s . F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s needed t o pursue many of the q u e s t i o n s generated by t h i s study i n an attempt t o st r e n g t h e n the u n d e r s t a n d i n g and implementation o f a content-based approach t o language e d u c a t i o n . IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Given the a c t i o n r e s e a r c h nature o f t h i s study, i m p l i c a t i o n s o f the f i n d i n g s are e x p l o r a t o r y and do generate many unanswered q u e s t i o n s . I n i t i a l l y , the t a s k was t o e v a l u a t e the SELP c u r r i c u l u m i n terms of i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r s h o r t s t a y , second language l e a r n e r s . An a n a l y s i s o f the f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e s t h a t the i s s u e s r a i s e d c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d more implementation than e v a l u a t i o n concerns f o r many of the i n s t r u c t o r s . For a s m a l l group o f o t h e r s , e v a l u a t i o n o f the c u r r i c u l u m was t h e i r f o c u s . Whether implementation o r e v a l u a t i o n i s s u e s , a r e v i s i o n o f the t a s k s based on the responses from the i n s t r u c t o r s was recommended. I t was f e l t t h a t the changes i n t a s k d e s i g n would b e n e f i t the students and 69 a s s i s t the i n s t r u c t o r i n implementing the c u r r i c u l u m i n the f u t u r e . A d i s c u s s i o n of those recommended changes f o l l o w s . i . I n s t r u c t i o n a l S e t t i n g a. Task Design C u r r e n t r e s e a r c h i n c u r r i c u l u m d e s i g n f o r second language l e a r n e r s emphasizes the need t o focus on the s t r u c t u r e of student t a s k s as a way of l i n k i n g c u r r i c u l u m o b j e c t i v e s and student performance. C r i t i c a l aspects of t a s k d e s i g n i d e n t i f i e d i n t h i s study i n c l u d e v o c a b u l a r y development, e l i c i t i n g s p e c i f i c language, l i n k i n g c ontent and language, meaningfulness, t a s k d i f f i c u l t y and types of group work. Content-based t a s k s o f f e r the l e a r n e r important s t r a t e g i e s t o l e a r n s u b j e c t - m a t t e r and language and t o extend t h i n k i n g . D i f f i c u l t v o c a b u l a r y demands w i t h i n the a c t i v i t i e s was a concern f o r many i n s t r u c t o r s . I t was r e c o g n i z e d t h a t a more sy s t e m a t i c approach t o i n t r o d u c i n g v o c a b u l a r y was needed as w e l l as o f f e r i n g many o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o engage i n d i s c o u r s e u s i n g v o c a b u l a r y i n meaningful ways. I t i s recommended t h a t an i n t r o d u c t o r y a c t i v i t y be p r o v i d e d f o r low l e v e l s t u d e n t s , and used as review f o r h i g h e r l e v e l s t u d e n t s , t h a t c o n s i s t s of t a s k s designed t o e l i c i t s p e c i f i c kinds of v o c a b u l a r y . The knowledge framework (Mohan, 1986) r e c o g n i z e s two types of v o c a b u l a r y : content and s t r u c t u r e . The content v o c a b u l a r y changes as the t o p i c changes but the s t r u c t u r e v o c a b u l a r y , r e l a t i n g t o the knowledge s t r u c t u r e s , i d e n t i f i e s language items t h a t can be h e l d c o n s t a n t over a v a r i e t y of t o p i c s w i t h i n the same knowledge s t r u c t u r e . Once the students f e e l 70 c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h one language s t r u c t u r e r e l a t e d t o a knowledge s t r u c t u r e , t h e y can be taught how t o express t h a t same knowledge s t r u c t u r e i n many d i f f e r e n t ways. The i n t r o d u c t o r y a c t i v i t y would prepare students f o r the c h a l l e n g e o f the cont e n t and s t r u c t u r e v o c a b u l a r y demanded i n the a c t i v i t i e s i n the c u r r i c u l u m . The a c t i v i t y , EATING IN THE CAFETERIA, c o u l d be r e v i s e d so t h a t the focus i s on kinds o f food and the s i t u a t i o n o f e a t i n g i n the c a f e t e r i a became one of s e v e r a l t a s k s w i t h i n a l a r g e r theme o r t o p i c e n t i t l e d NUTRITIONAL OR JUNK? (see Appendix E ) . In t h i s way the language and content are much more f o c u s s e d and students are g i v e n more o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o work w i t h the same v o c a b u l a r y i n v a r i o u s ways w i t h i n each t a s k . I t i s f e l t t h a t t h i s w i l l a i d the i n s t r u c t o r i n h i s / h e r implementation of the a c t i v i t y and v o c a b u l a r y w i l l b u i l d i n more o f a c o n t r o l l e d way, t h e r e f o r e c r e a t i n g many o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r s u c c e s s f u l student p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the t a s k . Attempts t o e l i c i t s p e c i f i c language posed problems f o r i n s t r u c t o r s . They were g i v e n minimal support i n background knowledge of language and content connections o r i n the way i t was handled i n the c u r r i c u l u m . In the a c t i v i t y , EATING IN THE CAFETERIA, the content was o r g a n i z e d i n t o the s i x s t r u c t u r e s as shown i n Appendix D. A b r i e f i n t r o d u c t i o n t o the language l i n k e d t o each s t r u c t u r e was i n c l u d e d f o r te a c h e r s a t the b e g i n n i n g o f the c u r r i c u l u m . In the l e s s o n guide t h e r e was not mention of the language and how i t i s l i n k e d t o the co n t e n t . I t was presumed t h a t the i n s t r u c t o r s would connect 71 the c o n t e n t t o the s t r u c t u r e , l i n k the s t r u c t u r e t o the language and know what t o l i s t e n f o r and t e a c h . The r e v i s e d a c t i v i t y (Appendix E) i d e n t i f i e s the language s t r u c t u r e t o focus on and r e f e r s t o language and v o c a b u l a r y throughout the t a s k s a l t h o u g h i t does not l i s t s p e c i f i c items. Use of an i n t r o d u c t o r y a c t i v i t y and a v a i l a b i l i t y of a more developed r e s o u r c e of language m a t e r i a l s r e l a t i n g t o the s t r u c t u r e s , w i l l a s s i s t i n s t r u c t o r s g r e a t l y . They c o u l d a l s o prepare t h e i r own l i s t s f o r the l e s s o n s they w i l l be t e a c h i n g , and t h e r e f o r e become more f a m i l i a r w i t h both the c o n t e n t and language t h e i r students w i l l be l e a r n i n g and u s i n g . C a u t i o n i s needed, though, i n t h a t t e a c h e r s need t o be informed and open t o t e a c h t o student responses. T h e r e f o r e , i n s t r u c t o r s need t o be t h o r o u g h l y prepared and have a s t r o n g sense of d i r e c t i o n f o r the language items they want t h e i r students t o work w i t h . They must move students i n the d i r e c t i o n of these words and s t r u c t u r e s and d i s c o u r s e p a t t e r n s but be p e r c e p t i v e and h i g h l y f l e x i b l e i n r e a l i z i n g the a c t u a l language t h a t the t a s k demands. S i m i l a r l y , s t r a t e g i e s f o r l i n k i n g language and content were not expressed v e r y w e l l i n EATING IN THE CAFETERIA. V i s u a l s were used t o support c o n c e p t u a l understanding but i t was not r e l a t e d t o s t r u c t u r a l v o c a b u l a r y i n a p r a c t i c a l way. In the r e v i s e d a c t i v i t y , NUTRITIONAL OR JUNK?, each t a s k has a t l e a s t one key g r a p h i c t h a t l i n k s c ontent and language. For example, t a s k 1 asks students t o c l a s s i f y foods i n t o d i f f e r e n t types and uses a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n t r e e as a g r a p h i c . I n s t r u c t o r s , f a m i l i a r w i t h the language of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , know the v o c a b u l a r y and language items the students w i l l be u s i n g t o t a l k about the t o p i c . EATING IN THE CAFETERIA, although meaningful t o the s t u d e n t s i n an immediate c o n t e x t , needed t o be broader i n scope f o r e x t e n d i n g t h i n k i n g and g e n e r a l i z i n g concepts. T h e r e f o r e , the t o p i c was changed t o encompass i d e a s about n u t r i t i o n a l and junk food and t h i s theme was c a r r i e d through t o the e a t i n g i n the c a f e t e r i a t a s k , as w e l l as o t h e r a c t i v i t i e s i n the u n i t on Food S t u d i e s . T h i s approach p r o v i d e s the students w i t h a more co h e s i v e understanding of the language and the content of the s i t u a t i o n . The r e v i s e d a c t i v i t y , NUTRITIONAL OR JUNK? has been c o n t r i v e d o r s t r u c t u r e d f o r s p e c i f i c language t h a t i s meaningful t o students but i t a l s o i n c l u d e s o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r students t o respond as independent t h i n k e r s t h a t w i l l c h a l l e n g e r them both a c a d e m i c a l l y and l i n g u i s t i c a l l y . The s t r u c t u r i n g of c h a l l e n g e s w i t h i n the a c t i v i t i e s need t o be more c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d . T h e r e f o r e i t i s recommended t h a t the r e v i s e d a c t i v i t i e s i n c l u d e s t a t i c and dynamic t a s k s as w e l l as i n v o l v i n g students i n c h o i c e and e v a l u a t i o n , a l l o w i n g students a t d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of p r o f i c i e n c y t o be c h a l l e n g e d a t a l l l e v e l s of t a s k d i f f i c u l t y . I t i s r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e r e are some v e r y simple c h o i c e s t h a t a l l students c o u l d be i n v o l v e d i n , such as l i k e s and d i s l i k e s o r food p r e f e r e n c e s and t h e r e f o r e c o u l d work w i t h the language of c h o i c e a t a v e r y low l e v e l . There i s l i t t l e evidence of a p r o g r e s s i o n or developmental stage t o language l e a r n i n g i n terms o f complex t h i n k i n g p r o c e s s e s . Young c h i l d r e n i n t h e i r 73 n a t i v e language s u c c e s s f u l l y use simple language t o convey complex t h i n k i n g . Perhaps the same a p p l i e s t o second language l e a r n e r s as w e l l . b. Use o f V i s u a l s The f i n d i n g s a l s o r a i s e d q u e s t i o n s about the use of v i s u a l s i n SLA. concerns r e f l e c t the 'how t o ' r a t h e r than the 'why' when d i s c u s s i o n s of v i s u a l s were reviewed. T h i s seems t o r e l a t e d i r e c t l y t o methodology and the importance of p r o f e s s i o n a l development i n t h i s a r ea. When i n s t r u c t o r s are ' informed of v a r i o u s s t r a t e g i e s t h a t use v i s u a l s t o f a c i l i t a t e l e a r n i n g , language and t h i n k i n g , and then experiment w i t h these s t r a t e g i e s i n t h e i r t e a c h i n g , the p o t e n t i a l of v i s u a l s w i l l be r e a l i z e d . c. S e q u e n t i a l Language Development The l a c k of s e q u e n t i a l language development was a l s o an i s s u e addressed by s e v e r a l s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s study. T h e i r frame of r e f e r e n c e as a language t e a c h e r was from a t r a d i t i o n a l grammar background and they viewed c o n t e n t -based language t e a c h i n g as c o n f u s i n g and n o n - s e q u e n t i a l . Most o t h e r i n s t r u c t o r s agreed t h a t having a good understanding of the language of the knowledge s t r u c t u r e s was e s s e n t i a l f o r s u c c e s s f u l implementation of the c u r r i c u l u m but found i t d i f f i c u l t t o see a p a t t e r n i n t h e i r language t e a c h i n g . I t seems t h a t a c l e a r d e f i n i t i o n of language from a content-based p e r s p e c t i v e i s n e c e s s a r y t o c l a r i f y the concern of s e q u e n t i a l language development. Perhaps a c h e c k l i s t of language items 74 t h a t r e p r e s e n t each of the knowledge s t r u c t u r e s would h e l p address some of t h e i r concerns. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH T h i s study has r a i s e d many i s s u e s i n v o l v i n g content-based language t e a c h i n g , e s p e c i a l l y i n the process o f implementation and a t the l e v e l o f t a s k d e s i g n . F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s needed t o develop s t r a t e g i e s t o a s s i s t i n s t r u c t o r s when working w i t h i n a content-based s e t t i n g . F i n d i n g a way t o balance t h e o r y and p r a c t i c e , w i t h l i m i t e d time a v a i l a b l e f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l development, i s a c h a l l e n g e . Is experi e n c e the be s t t e a c h e r o r w i l l d e t a i l e d e x p l a n a t i o n s o f t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s w i t h i n the c u r r i c u l u m meet the needs of the i n s t r u c t o r s who r a i s e d implementation q u e s t i o n s ? Given the nature o f t h i s i n t e g r a t e d approach and the n o n - s e q u e n t i a l development of language, i t would be v e r y d i f f i c u l t t o i n c l u d e d e t a i l e d e x p e c t a t i o n s of language outcomes w i t h i n e v e r y a c t i v i t y . P r a c t i c e and co n t i n u e d p r o f e s s i o n a l development support seem t o be the bes t p a r t n e r s h i p . Research i s a l s o needed t o i n v e s t i g a t e l i n k s between t a s k and the knowledge framework. T h i s document speaks p a r t l y t o concerns about language, v i s u a l s , l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y o r co m p l e x i t y and how they r e l a t e t o t a s k . I t seems t h a t these t h r e e areas are a l s o v e r y much i n t e g r a t e d w i t h i n the knowledge framework. T h e r e f o r e , an examination of t a s k types and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h v a r i o u s types of knowledge seems t o be a l o g i c a l p r o g r e s s i o n i n content-based r e s e a r c h . 75 Task i s a common but dynamic t o o l t h a t i n s t r u c t o r s use f r e q u e n t l y f o r many d i f f e r e n t purposes. The a d a p t a b i l i t y and f l e x i b i l i t y o f the s t r u c t u r e o f t a s k p l a y s an important r o l e i n SLA m e r i t s f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Are t h e r e developmental stages w i t h i n a t a s k t h a t enhance SLA and l e a r n i n g ? Feedback from i n s t r u c t o r s seem t o r e f l e c t t h a t t h e r e i s . The importance o f t a s k cannot be underestimated and deserves a c l o s e r examination i n SLA r e s e a r c h . F u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n the are a o f v i s u a l s and t h e i r r o l e i n t e a c h i n g language and content i s e s s e n t i a l . Most i n s t r u c t o r s r e c o g n i z e d the u s e f u l n e s s of v i s u a l s but were not u s i n g them t o t h e i r p o t e n t i a l i n the classroom. T r a d i t i o n a l methods f o c u s s e d on the content of the v i s u a l but r a r e l y was i t used t o e l i c i t and p r a c t i s e language. The need f o r a more e f f e c t i v e way t o o r g a n i z e the language component of content-based approach was r a i s e d . T h i s i s an important i s s u e t h a t needs t o be addressed from a l i n g u i s t i c p e r s p e c t i v e so t h a t i n s t r u c t o r s f e e l more c o n f i d e n t i n t h i s approach t o ESL. T h i s study r e c o g n i z e s the need t o i n v e s t i g a t e the importance o f c u l t u r e and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o language and the s t r u c t u r e of knowledge, although t h i s was not one of the more p r a c t i c a l types of i s s u e s t h a t most i n s t r u c t o r s r a i s e d . Having a c l e a r e r u nderstanding of the r o l e t h a t c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s , and the process o f a c c u l t u r a t i o n , p l a y i n l e a r n i n g language and content would b e n e f i t ESL c u r r i c u l u m w r i t e r s and i n s t r u c t o r s immensely. 76 Another i s s u e worthy of i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e l a t e s t o the use of s t u d e n t s ' f i r s t language as they worked through t a s k s : when students are on ta s k , does the use of the f i r s t language i n t e r f e r e w i t h o r enhance SLA? T h i s i s one area most i n s t r u c t o r s must d e a l w i t h r e g u l a r l y as they o f t e n support and encourage an " E n g l i s h Only" p o l i c y i n the classroom. Perhaps t h e i r e f f o r t s i n p o l i c i n g and e n f o r c i n g t h i s n o t i o n o f always u s i n g the second language i s not v a l i d . More r e s e a r c h i s needed. T h i s study has generated many q u e s t i o n s about t e a c h i n g language and co n t e n t . I t i s hoped t h a t i t w i l l c o n t r i b u t e t o f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i n a new and growing f i e l d i n SLA and l e a r n i n g . IN CONCLUSION No matter how w e l l the c u r r i c u l u m i s w r i t t e n and designed, i t i s how i n s t r u c t o r s use i t t h a t w i l l determine the q u a l i t y o f e d u c a t i o n the students r e c e i v e . E i s n e r (1985) s t a t e s t h a t , "The o n l y way t o a p p r a i s e the q u a l i t y o f the c u r r i c u l u m i s t o watch the t e a c h e r and the students i n the c l a s s " ( E i s n e r , 1985:46) because "... t h e r e i s no assurance t h a t those p l a n s (of the intended c u r r i c u l u m ) w i l l be a c t u a l i z e d . " ( i b i d : 4 7 ) . T h i s focusses on the s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n s t r u c t o r s p l a y i n what happens i n the i n s t r u c t i o n a l environment and confirms the importance of i n v o l v i n g teachers i n c u r r i c u l u m development. They are u l t i m a t e l y the uses and must support and b e l i e v e i n what the c u r r i c u l u m r e p r e s e n t s . I t i s the f i r m b e l i e f of t h i s w r i t e r t h a t i t i s o n l y when 77 i n s t r u c t o r s are i n c l u d e d , wherever p o s s i b l e , i n the d e c i s i o n -making a t both molar and mo l e c u l a r l e v e l s ; p r o v i d e d o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n p r o f e s s i o n a l development; and allo w e d t o be f l e x i b l e i n t h e i r a d a p t a t i o n of the c u r r i c u l u m t o meet the needs and i n t e r e s t s o f t h e i r s t u d e n t s , t h a t the most e f f e c t i v e e d u c a t i o n a l environment be r e a l i z e d . The i d e a l implementation s t r a t e g y d e s c r i b e d above i s v e r y d i f f i c u l t t o achieve i n a s h o r t s t a y program such as SELP. Yet, the p r i n c i p l e s i t r e p r e s e n t s can be s t r i v e d f o r . The p r o f e s s i o n a l development l i m i t a t i o n s o f a summer program must be c o n s i d e r e d when implementing a new approach and new a c t i v i t i e s . O v e r a l l the i n s t r u c t o r s d i d an e x c e l l e n t job g i v e n the enormous t a s k o f t r y i n g t o understand the t h e o r y and then put i n t o p r a c t i c e content-based language t e a c h i n g , a new p e r s p e c t i v e i n second language a c q u i s i t i o n many of them had not p r e v i o u s l y c o n s i d e r e d . In summary, the content-based approach t o language t e a c h i n g , as o u t l i n e d by Mohan (1986), seems t o be p e d a g o g i c a l l y sound. The knowledge framework not o n l y f a c i l i t a t e s an understanding o f the c u l t u r a l component of language l e a r n i n g , but a l s o o r g a n i z e s t o p i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n as a l i n k t o language, content and t h i n k i n g p r o v i d i n g a framework f o r second language l e a r n e r s t h a t allows them t o l e a r n and t a l k about i n t e r e s t i n g and complex t o p i c s . I t i s t h i s k i n d of e d u c a t i o n a l arena t h a t f o s t e r s p e r s o n a l growth i n a l l aspects o f l e a r n i n g . 78 REFERENCES B l o o m f i e l d , L. (1942). O u t l i n e Guide f o r the P r a c t i c a l Study  o f F o r e i g n Languages. B a l t i m o r e : L i n g u i s t i c S o c i e t y of America. Brock, C. (1986). The E f f e c t s of R e f e r e n t i a l Questions on ESL Classroom D i s c o u r s e . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 20(l):47-58. Brooks, N. (1942). Language and Language L e a r n i n g : Theory  and P r a c t i c e . (2nd ed.;) New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Brown. G., A. Anderson, R. S h i l l c o c k , & G. Y u l e . (1984). Teaching T a l k S t r a t e g i e s f o r P r o d u c t i o n and Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Bruner, J.S. (1960). The Process of E d u c a t i o n . New York: Random House. B u l l o c k Committee. (1975). A Language f o r L i f e . London: HMSO. Campbell, A. (1978). Language Background and Comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 32:316-322. C a r r e l l , P., & J . E i s t e r h o l d . (1983). Schema Theory and ESL Reading Pedagogy. TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 17(4):553-573. C a r r e l l , P. (1985) F a c i l i t a t i n g ESL Reading by Teaching Text S t r u c t u r e . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 19(4):727-754. C e l c e - M u r c i a , M. & S. H i l l e s . (1988). Techniques and  Resources i n Teaching Grammar. England: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Chomsky, N. (1957). S y n t a c t i c S t r u c t u r e s . The Hague, The N e t h e r l a n d s : Moulton and Company. Chamot, A. & J.M. O'Malley. (1987). "The C o g n i t i v e Academic Language L e a r n i n g Approach: A Bridge t o the Mainstream." TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 21(2):227-248. Coelho, E. (1982). Language Across the C u r r i c u l u m . TESL TALK Q u a r t e r l y f o r Teachers of E n g l i s h as a Second Language. The O n t a r i o M i n i s t r y of C i t i z e n s h i p and C u l t u r e , 13(3):56-7 0. Condon, J . , & F. Yousef. (1975). An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o I n t e r c u l t u r a l Communication. I n d i a n a p o l i s , Indiana: B o b b s - M e r r i l l . Cooper, J . (1979). Think and L i n k . London: Edward A r n o l d . Cummins, J . (1979). " L i n g u i s t i c Interdependence and the E d u c a t i o n a l Development of B i l i n g u a l C h i l d r e n . " Review o f E d u c a t i o n a l Research 49(2):222-251. Cummins, J . (1984). "Language P r o f i c i e n c y , B i l i n g u a l i s m and Academic Achievement." In B i l i n g u a l i s m and S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n : Issues i n Assessment and Pedagogy. Clevedon, England, M u l t i l i n g u a l M a t t e r s . Dewey, J . (1900). The C h i l d and the C u r r i c u l u m ; The School  and S o c i e t y . Chicago: The U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s . Dewey, J . (1916). Democracy and E d u c a t i o n . New York: The M a c M i l l a n Company. Doughty, C. & T. P i c a . (1986). "Information Gap" Tasks: Do They F a c i l i t a t e Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n ? TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 20(2):305-325. Dubin, F. & E. O l s h t a i n . (1987). Course Design. Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . E a r l y , M., C. Thew & P. W a k e f i e l d . (1985). ESL I n s t r u c t i o n V i a the Regular C u r r i c u l u m : A Framework and Resource Book. V i c t o r i a , B.C.: M i n i s t r y of E d u c a t i o n . E i s n e r , E. (1985) 2nd ed. The E d u c a t i o n a l Imagination. New York: M a c M i l l a n P u b l i s h i n g Company. F r e i r e , Paulo. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: The Seabury P r e s s . Froese, M. & M. Low. (1989). An I n t e r a c t i v e Content-Based ESL C u r r i c u l u m . (rev. e d . ) . Unpublished manuscript. Vancouver Community C o l l e g e , Vancouver, B.C. Gagne, Robert. (1965). The C o n d i t i o n s of L e a r n i n g . Toronto:. H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston, Inc. Gagne, Robert. (1981). "The L e a r n i n g B a s i s of Teaching Methods." C u r r i c u l u m & I n s t r u c t i o n . Eds. H. Giroux, A. Penna and W. P i n a r . C a l i f o r n i a : McCutchan. Gass, S. & E. V a r o n i s . (1984). Task V a r i a t i o n and Nonnative/Nonnative N e g o t i a t i o n of Meaning. In S. Gass & C. Madden (eds.) Input i n Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n . Cambridge: Newbury House P u b l i s h e r s . Goodman, K. (1972). The Reading P r o c e s s : Theory and P r a c t i c e . In R. Hodges & H. Rudorf (eds.) Language and L e a r n i n g t o Read: What Teachers Should Know About Language. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n Company. 80 Hacker, C. (1980). From Schema Theory t o Classroom P r a c t i c e . Language ARts 57:866-71. H a l l i d a y , M.A.K. (1975). L e a r n i n g How t o Mean: E x p l o r a t i o n s  i n the Study of Language. London: Edward A r n o l d P u b l i s h e r s . H a l l i d a y , M.A.K. (1978). Language as S o c i a l S e m i o t i c . London: Edward A r n o l d . Herber, H. (1978). Teaching Reading i n the Content Areas (2nd e d . ) . Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l . Horowitz, D. (1986). What P r o f e s s o r s A c t u a l l y Require: Academic Tasks f o r the ESL Classroom. TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 20(3):445-462. Hymes, D. (1968). "The Ethnography o f Speaking." In J . Fishman (ed.) Readings i n the S o c i o l o g y o f Language. The Hague: Monton. Lawrence, M. (1972). W r i t i n g as a T h i n k i n g P r o c e s s . Ann Arb o r : The U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan P r e s s . Loban, W. (1979). R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between Language and L i t e r a c y . Language A r t s , 56:485-6. L e g g e t t , Glenn, David Mead & W i l l i a m Charvat. (1978). Handbook f o r W r i t e r s . New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc. Loughrey, T e r r y & David Smith. (1979). Contact. Vancouver: Vancouver Community C o l l e g e . Long, M. (1983). "Native speaker/non-native speaker c o n v e r s a t i o n and the n e g o t i a t i o n o f comprehensible i n p u t . A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s , 4:126-141. Long, M. & P. P o r t e r . (1985). Group Work, Interlanguage T a l k , and Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 19(2):207-227. Long, M. & J . Richards ( E d s . ) . (1987). Methodology i n TESOL A  Book of Readings. New York: Newbury House P u b l i s h e r s . Marland, M. (1977). Language Across the C u r r i c u l u m . London: Heinemann. Mohan, B.A. (1977). "Towards a S i t u a t i o n a l C u r r i c u l u m . " On TESOL, 1977:250-257. Mohan, B.A. (1979). Language Teaching and Content Teaching. TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 13(2):171-182. 81 Mohan, B.A. (1982). Language, Content and the I n t e r a c t i v e P r i n c i p l e . TEAL '81/TESL Canada Conference Proceedings. 1981:11-16. Mohan, B.A. (1986). Language and Content. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Mohan, B.A. (1987). "The S t r u c t u r e of S i t u a t i o n s and The A n a l y s i s o f Text." In FEST SCHRIFT f o r M.A.K. H a l l i d a y , 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Novak, J.D. & D. B. Gowin. (1984). Concept Mapping f o r M e a n i n g f u l L e a r n i n g . L e a r n i n g How To Learn. Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Oakeshott, M. (1975). "Education: The Engagement and i t s F r u s t r a t i o n . " A C r i t i q u e of C urrent E d u c a t i o n a l Aims. Eds. R.F. Dearden, R.H. H i r s t and R.S. P e t e r s . London: Routledge & Kegan P a u l . 17-47. P e t e r s , R.S. (1966). E t h i c s and E d u c a t i o n . London: George A l l e n & Unwin L t d . P i c a , T. (1987). Second-Language A c q u i s i t i o n , S o c i a l I n t e r a c t i o n , and the Classroom. A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s , 8(1):3-21. P i c a , T. & C. Doughty. (1984). Input and I n t e r a c t i o n i n the Communicative Language Classroom: A Comparison of Teacher-Fronted and Group A c t i v i t i e s . In S. Gass & C. Madden (eds.) Input In Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n . Cambridge: Newbury House P u b l i s h e r s . Reading and T h i n k i n g i n E n g l i s h D i s c o v e r i n g D i s c o u r s e . Teacher's E d i t i o n . (1979).1 Oxford: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . R u t h e r f o r d , W.S. (1987). Second Language Grammars: L e a r n i n g  and Teaching. New York: Longman. S a v i l l e - T r o i k e , M. (1984). "What R e a l l y Matters i n Second Language L e a r n i n g f o r Academic Achievement?" TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 18(2):199-218. S l a v i n , R. (1987). "Cooperative L e a r n i n g and the C o o p e r a t i v e S c h o o l . " E d u c a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p . 45(3):7-13. Snow, M.A. , & D.M. B r i n t o n . (1984). L i n k i n g ESL Courses w i t h U n i v e r s i t y Content Courses: The Adjunct Model. Paper p r e s e n t e d a t the Annual Meeting of the C a l i f o r n i a A s s o c i a t i o n of Teachers of E n g l i s h t o Speakers of Other Languages, San Jose, Ca. 82 Staab, C l a i r e F. (1982). Classroom P r a c t i c e s f o r F a c i l i t a t i n g O r a l Language: Improving Semantic and S y n t a c t i c Cuing Systems. Reading Improvement, 19(4):250-256. Staab, C l a i r e . (1983). A c t i v i t i e s t o E l i c i t S p e c i f i c Language F u n c t i o n s : V a r y i n g the F a c t o r s of a Speech Event Does I n f l u e n c e the A p p r o p r i a t e Language. Canadian Modern Language Review, 39:847-859. Staab, C l a i r e . (1986). E l i c i t i n g the Language F u n c t i o n of F o r e c a s t i n g / R e a s o n i n g i n Elementary School Classrooms. The A l b e r t a J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Research. 32(2):109-126. Swain, M. (1974). French Immersion Programs A c r o s s Canada: Research F i n d i n g s . Canadian Modern Language Review, 31(2):117-129. Swain, M. (1987). The Case f o r Focussed Input: C o n t r i v e d But A u t h e n t i c — Or, How Content Teaching Needs t o be Manipulated and Complemented t o Maximize Second Language L e a r n i n g . Paper presented a t TESL Canada '87 Conference, Vancouver, B.C. Tennant, Susan, & Nancy Y i l d i z . (1980). L e t ' s T a l k Developing E f f e c t i v e Communication S k i l l s An EFL C u r r i c u l u m Guide f o r Japanese High School and U n i v e r s i t y Students. (rev. ed.) Vancouver: Vancouver Community C o l l e g e . Torbe, M. ed. (1980). Language P o l i c i e s i n A c t i o n . London: Ward Lock E d u c a t i o n a l . Tough, J . (1976). L i s t e n i n g t o C h i l d r e n T a l k i n g . London: Ward Lock E d u c a t i o n . Ven Ek, J.A. (1971). L i n g u i s t i c s and Language Teaching. I n t e r n a t i o n a l Review of A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s , 9:319-34. V a r o n i s , E. & S. Gass. (1983). "Target language" i n p u t from non-native speakers. Paper p r e s e n t e d a t the 17th Annual TESOL Convention, Toronto, March 1983. Wesche, M. & D. Ready. (1985). F o r e i g n e r T a l k i n the U n i v e r s i t y Classroom. In S. Gass & C. Madden ( e d s . ) , Input i n Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n (pp. 89-114). Cambridge: Newbury House P u b l i s h e r s . Widdowson, H.G. (1978). Teaching Language as Communication. London: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 83 Y i l d i z , N. (1980). L e t ' s T a l k Developing E f f e c t i v e Communication S k i l l s . (rev. e d . ) . Vancouver, B.C.: Vancouver Community C o l l e g e . Y i l d i z , Nancy. (1983). E x p l o r i n g Downtown Vancouver Contact, (re v . e d . ) . Vancouver: Vancouver Community C o l l e g e . 84 APPENDIX A - AN EXAMPLE OF A FLOWCHART FROM AN ACTIVITY IN THE SUMMER ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROGRAM CURRICULUM CHART 85 A££ Fee IfZY ALL- "TH/26E PC&e>L3lUV££> 1. WHICH ONe T f l X S YOJ JO AQf- ANOTHEJZ 2- mien OKe M<&HTcser SOVU&T? Z 3. U//LLKELPTtx;7H£M0ST? GIVE PACTIONS CLOSE: APPENDIX B - THE FOLLOWING IS AN EXCERPT FROM THE ACTIVITY, EATING OUT: WHERE SHOULD WE GO?: O b j e c t i v e : The student w i l l be a b l e t o s e l e c t a s u i t a b l e r e s t a u r a n t and e at out o b s e r v i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e Canadian customs. Student A c t i v i t i e s : C l a s s i f i c a t i o n : type k i n d of c a t e g o r y Begin the d i s c u s s i o n by e l i c i t i n g the d i f f e r e n t kinds o f r e s t a u r a n t s and some the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Students i n s m a l l groups complete Chart 1-C-l. E x p l a i n t h o r o u g h l y the terms on the c h a r t . a) KENTUCKY C A S H " P A ^ T A K P C L G A M - A L L FOOP | 6 £ D W • HOTEL-i t i t C l a s s i f i c a t i o n "McDonald's i s a k i n d of r e s t a u r a n t t h a t i s ." 0 0 1^ 88 APPENDIX C - IN THE ACTIVITY, BUYING SOUVENIRS, THE FOLLOWING EXERCISE FOCUSSES STUDENTS' THINKING ON QUALITY VS. QUANTITY WHEN THEY MAKE CHOICES ABOUT PURCHASES. O b j e c t i v e : The student w i l l be a b l e t o purchase s p e c i f i c s o u v e n i r items o f h i s / h e r own c h o i c e and w i t h i n h i s / h e r budget. Student A c t i v i t i e s : C h oice: "I p r e f e r ..." "I would l i k e ..." Students d i v i d e i n t o f o u r groups - two groups o f customers - two groups o f c l e r k s The " c l e r k s " s e t up s o u v e n i r shops w i t h p i c t u r e s r e p l a c i n g a c t u a l items. Include both expensive and in e x p e n s i v e items a t each shop. "Customers" are each g i v e n $400.00 i n p l a y money. They r o l e p l a y making purchases, b e i n g aware of p r i c e and q u a l i t y d i f f e r e n c e s . Use the f l o w c h a r t 2-B-2 t o guide c o n v e r s a t i o n s t h a t w i l l i n v o l v e r e q u e s t i n g the items, q u e s t i o n i n g the f e a t u r e s o r d e s c r i p t i o n s , d e t r m i n i n g the ta x and j u s t i f y i n g c h o i c e s . Groups may then change r o l e s . COURSE: CONSUMER AWARENESS UNIT 1: FOOD ACTIVITY A: EATING IN THE CAFETERIA OBJECTIVE: The student w i l l successfully be able to order and eat lunch in the cafeteria. - CHART #1 - Canadian Meals - CHART 02 - Cafeteria Price List - CHART #3 - Canadian Money - CHART #4 - Countable/Uncountable Food Items - CHART f/5 - Short Order Procedure - CHART #6 - Table Setting - CHART #7 - Food Pictures - Oregon Dairy Council food pictures Discuss what students might wish to order for lunch. Although most students bring a bag lunch they usually purchase some additional items. Focus discussion on naming foods and food categories. Use Chart #1 along with the food pictures (or Chart #8) to talk, about foods that are appropriate for different meals in Canada as compared with the students' home country. Students work in pairs and using Chart #2, discuss and decide what they would eat on a $4.00 lunch budget. If necessary refer to Chart #3 and Chart /M providing only one sheet per 2 students (to ensure discussion). Students change partners and report their decisions. Ask 2 students to go to the cafeteria to determine the procedure for ordering a„hamburger and to report their findings to the class. Small groups of students role play going to the cafeteria to eat lunch. Refar to Chart 26 i f students are unsure of naming utensils. Discuss differences between formal and informal dining. The class might go to the cafeteria during the break. VISUALS: LESSON GUIDE: THE FOLLOWING L I S T OF A C T I V I T I E S FROM E A T I N G I N THE C A F E T E R I A , I D E N T I F I E S T A S K S THAT WERE CONSIDERED BY MANY INSTRUCTORS AS TOO COMPLEX AND L A C K I N G I N B U I L T - I N LANGUAGE SUPPORT STRUCTURES FOR LOWER L E V E L S T U D E N T S . CHART #£-A-1 CONTlNUEP CURRICULUM E V A L U A T I O N Q U E S T I O N N A I R E G I V E N TO INSTRUCTORS P A R T I C I P A T I N G I N THE SUMMER E N G L I S H LANGUAGE PROGRAM 93 Continuing L/ Education Division 1155 East Broadway. Box No. 24785 Sra. ' C Vancouver . B.C. V5T 4N5 Langara C a m p u s Of f ice 100 W. 49th Ave. Vancouver . B.C. V5Y 2Z6 T o a l l S . E . L . P . I n s t r u c t o r s , O n b e h a l f o f M a r g a r e t F r o e s e a n d M a r y 1 i n L o w , I t h a n k y o u f o r y o u r p a t i e n c e i n h a n d l i n g t h e w o r k i n g c o p y o f t h e n e w c u r r i c u l u m t h i s s u m m e r . W e u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t h e r e a r e a l w a y s s o m e d i f f i c u l t i e s w h e n i m p l e m e n t i n g a n e w c u r r i c u l u m b u t a r e p l e a s e d w i t h y o u r d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o m a k e i t w o r k . Y o u r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e c u r r i c u l u m , i n c l u d i n g a l l t h e n o t e s y o u h a v e m a d e o n v a r i o u s p a g e s i n t h e b i n d e r , w i l l c o n t r i b u t e t o a m o s t i m p o r t a n t p a r t o f t h e o v e r a l l e v a l u a t i o n o f o u r p r o g r a m . C o n s e q u e n t l y w e a s k t h a t y o u c o m p l e t e t h e f o l l o w i n g t a s k s : 1 . R e s p o n d t o t h e t h r e e q u e s t i o n s o n t h e c u r r i c u l u m . 2. P l e a s e s u b m i t y o u r r e s p o n s e s w i t h t h e c u r r i c u l u m b i n d e r o n t h e l a s t d a y o f c l a s s e s t o M a r y 1 i n L o w . 3 . C o m p l e t e t h e p r o g r a m e v a l u a t i o n . T h e s e c o m m e n t s s h o u l d b e s u b m i t t e d o n t h e l a s t d a y o f c l a s s e s t o . M a r y l i n L o w . Y o u r c o m m e n t s a n d o b s e r v a t i o n s a r e v a l u e d a n d w i l l b e c o n s i d e r e d c a r e f u l l y i n o u r g o a l t o p r o v i d e e x c e l l e n c e n o t o n l y i n c u r r i c u l u m d e v e l o p m e n t b u t i n a l l a r e a s o f o u r p r o g r a m . T h a n k y o u f o r y o u r t i m e a n d e f f o r t i n c o m p l e t i n g t h e s e e v a l u a t i o n t a s k s . T h a n k y o u , D r . I a n A n d r e w s I n s t r u c t o r G r o u p Le ve 1 L e n g t h of s t a y 1. Was the c u r r i c u l u m c o n t e n t a p p r o p r i a t e r e l a t i v e t o y o u r g r o u p , t h e i r l e v e l o f E n g l i s h c o m p e t e n c y a n d the l e n g t h o f t h e i r s t a y ? I f s o , why? I f n o t , why n o t ? 95 2. a) What were t h e s u c c e s s e s and d i f f i c u l t i e s o f the c u r r i c u l u m r e l a t i v e t o you as an i n s t r u c t o r ? b)What were t h e s u c c e s s e s and d i f f i c u l t i e s o f t h e c u r r i c u l u m f o r y o u r s t u d e n t s ? 3. How c a n we b e t t e r a s s i s t you i f you were t o t e a c h the c u r r i c u l u m n e x t y e a r ? APPENDIX F - THE FOLLOWING PAGES SHOW THE TOPICAL ANALYSIS FOR NUTRITIONAL OR JUNK? AND GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF A KEY VISUAL AND THE INTERACTIVE STRATEGY USED TO ELICIT LANGUAGE IN AN AUTHENTIC CONTEXT. Student A c t i v i t i e s : B r a instorm f o r advantages/disadvantages of a junk/balanced d i e t . Then have students, i n p a i r s , complete Chart l-A -5 by-c o n s i d e r i n g the two c h o i c e s ( a c t i o n s , the outcomes and advantages/disadvantages). Ask students t o express t h e i r c h o i c e and e x p l a i n why, f o c u s s i n g e q u a l l y on what they are s a y i n g and how they are s a y i n g i t . ( T h i s i s not t o say t h a t o n l y a junk or o n l y a n u t r i t i o n a l d i e t i s the answer but t o make students aware of what they are e a t i n g , what i t might be doing t o them and t o g i v e them an o p p o r t u n i t y t o e x p l o r e o t h e r p o s s i b l e avanues f o r working towards a h e a l t h i e r combination of the two types of food.) Language S t r u c t u r e s : Choice - Models: can, w i l l , must, ought, should, would, i n my o p i n i o n i t would be b e n e f i c i a l ... 98 UNIT ONE: NUTRITIONAL OR JUNK? Objective: Students will be able to describe and classify various food items as either nutritional or junk food. They will also be able to evaluate the comparison between their diet and what is recommended by the Canada Food Guide. They will then be able to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of eating a balanced diet and/or junk food diet. CONCEPTS/ CLASSIFICATION PRINCIPLES EVALUATION Theoretical Background Knowledge Classify foods as nutritional or junk Effect of balanced nutritional and junk/sugar diet Evaluating daily food intake to Canada Food Guide recommendations Specific Action Situation Name/describe specific food items Keeping a personal record of all food intake for one day Possible choices of nutritional or junk food diet DESCRIPTION SEQUENCE CHOICE I i THINKING SKILLS AND A SAMPLE OF THE LANGUAGE RELATED TO THE KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORK FOR: ACTIVITY A: NUTRITIONAL OR JUNK? CLASSIRCATION PRINCIPLES EVALUATION CLASSIFYING by food groups, "Cereal Is a type of grain" DEFINING: processed food, junk food, nutrition GENERALIZING: "All these foods belong to the fruit and vegetable food group PREDICTING: "With a balanced diet 1." HYPOTHESIZING: "If 1 ate more of... then it might mean ..." FORMULATING THEORY: "If we ate ... then we would have a healthier body too" CAUSE and EFFECT: "Because 1 eat a balanced diet ..." EVALUATING: "1 believe a junk food diet is common because... Based on the evidence, this information is correct. RECOMMENDING: "This is a more important food item, so we should..." DESCRIBING specific food items, balanced diet COMPARING/CONTRASTING: "Eating eggs and cheese is similar to eating meat .. ." LISTING: "These food items would make a balanced lunch" NARRATING: "For breakfast 1 ate ... then 1 snacked on ... next 1..." SEQUENCING: first... happened, etc. CHOOSMG: "I'd like to eat ..." CONCLUDING: "Because the food here is ... we conclude/think ..." PROPOSING ALTERNATIVES: "1 think this is a more important idea and we should ..." DESCRIPTION SEQUENCE CHOICE 100 C H A R T 1 - A - 5 D E C I S I O N T R E E T O P I C A C T I O N O U T C O M E S E V A L U A T I O N Diet Balanced Diet + High Energy - More Difficult + Less Cost - More Time Consuming (time) To Prepare But + Cheaper and + More Beneficial to Body Junk Food Diet - Less Effort - More Costly - Low Energy - Weight Gain + Easier + Less Time But Costly and Unhealthy Language of Choice: SAMPLE: (model verbs) In my opinion because If one eats a balanced diet, then he probably will have high energy which is more time consuming bjji cheaper and. more beneficial to the body. In my view ... I agree than ... I don't know whether ... To me ... I disagree with ... It is clear to me that ... 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078271/manifest

Comment

Related Items