• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content




This is a seminar paper presented to the panelists of English Department (College of Languages, Linguistics and Literature--Philippine Normal University). Disclaimer: Bibliography pages are not ...

This is a seminar paper presented to the panelists of English Department (College of Languages, Linguistics and Literature--Philippine Normal University). Disclaimer: Bibliography pages are not included due to technical glitch..



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment


    • APPROVAL SHEET In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Teaching with specialization in English Language Arts, this Seminar paper entitled ―CONTENT-BASED GRAMMAR EXERCISES FOR TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS‖ prepared and submitted by MICHAEL M. MAGBANUA is hereby recommended for acceptance.___________________________ EDILBERTA C. BALA Date Adviser Accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree ofMaster of Arts in Teaching with Specialization in English Language Arts.__________________________ NILDA R. SUNGA , Ph.D. Date Head, English Department__________________________ LYDIA P. LALUNIO Date Dean College of Language, Linguistics and Literature 1
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENT This seminar paper would not have been made possible without the helpof a number of people who tirelessly devoted their precious time and expertisein reviewing the manuscripts, offering valuable suggestions for improvementand for giving their insightful comments not to mention their selfless sharing ofreferences and other relevant resources. Hence, my heartfelt gratitude to the following: My highly encouraging colleagues in the College of Mary Immaculate, our Administrator;Ms. Pia Marie Andres, the President; and most especially to Mrs. Cecille Santos-Andres, theChairman of the Board, for her endearing moral and financial support while on my way ofcompleting my MA units till the completion of this much coveted Degree. My BEEd students, most especially our first batch of graduates—whom Iconsider as my inspiration in this undertaking; my former IV – BSEd – Englishmajors; BSBio; Engineering; and BIT students of Bulacan State University(Malolos Campus); and STI College-Balagtas, my grass root in college teaching,whom I also owed a lot, most specifically to kindhearted couples Mr. and Mrs.Kerwin C. Kaw and the old faculty and staff. I should also acknowledge my beloved church mates in BalagtasChristian Church and Ministries for their undying prayers for my householdand myself. I also would like to remember those former and present ELT classmates and professorswho have enriched my experience in English language teaching. I gained not only pedagogicalenrichment, but friendship as well. Prof. Edilberta C. Bala of PNU, my patient considerate adviser, whotirelessly gave her most valued time in proofreading, revising andrecommending this paper for approval 2
    • DEDICATION To My beloved family; My most treasured friends; STI College-Balagtas; BSU-Malolos English Faculty;My churchmates; my former and present students; and My CMI family I wholeheartedly dedicate this humble undertaking… 3
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page i Acknowledgement ii Dedication iii – iv Abstract v CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM and ITS SETTING 1 - 10  Introduction  Statement of the Problem  Purpose of the Study  Significance of the Studying  Scope and Delimitation  Theoretical Framework  Conceptual Framework  Definition of TermsCHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 11 - 70 CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES 71 - 72 CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF MATERIALS 73 - 182  The Grammar Exercises (with Key to Correction) CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 183- 185 BIBLIOGRAPHY 186- 192 APPENDICES 193-218  Appendix A: Schematic Diagram 4
    •  Appendix B: Table of Test Specifications  Appendix C: Grammatical Descriptions  CURRICULUM VITAE 219-220 ABSTRACTName : Michael M. MagbanuaTitle : Content-Based Grammar Exercises for Teacher Education StudentsKey Concepts :  Content –Based Language Instruction  Cognitive Academic Language Learning InstructionSpecialization : English Language ArtsAdviser : Prof. Edilberta C. Bala A. Objectives This study recognizes the effectiveness of content-based language instruction in the tertiary level particularly to Teacher Education students as the pedagogical basis in developing integrative grammar exercises. B. Methodology The researcher gathered related literatures and prepared bibliographical sketch. He then prepared table of specifications, encoded reviewed articles. Finally, he utilized various professional literatures in teacher education as sources of grammar exercises. 5
    • C. The Materials The teacher education exercises in ten grammatical structureswere categorized into three varying degrees of difficulty, that is, easy,average, and difficult. The design was patterned after Heaton‘s (1995).Hence, several of his models on item types like multiple choice,completion types, and error recognition were used.D. Conclusions Specifically, this study found out that it is very tedious to preparecontent-based instructional materials such as this for this entails muchtime and skills since grammatical inputs from sources can be practicallylimited. That not all teacher education-reading materials contains awide-range of grammatical inputs specifically perfect tenses, aspects, andpreposition of movement, among others. Moreover, while the intendedgrammatical structures were not treated comprehensively, this mayaffect student‘s proficiency in answering the test items since commonstructures have been overly-used throughout the items.E. Recommendations Prospective researches must pilot the exercises to the teachereducation students to determine the effectiveness of the instructionalmaterial. ESL instructors are encouraged to allow students experiencesimilar procedure of doing the instructional material as part of thecourse requirement in the program. On the other hand, peer critiquingof the sample exercises is also important. Samples must be viewed andevaluated by both the language and content instructors to determine thelimitations and/or comprehensibility of the instructional material.Hence, development of rubrics for evaluation is highly recommended. Asto LET in mind, writers then are encouraged to adapt the approach oftest preparation instead of using the generic approach. 6
    • CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUNDINTRODUCTION This paper was inspired primarily of the teacher education students(both the old and the present), and the in-service teachers whom the researcheris indebted to. For one, after gained fruitful years of teaching in bothelementary and high school, he got a chance to teach early adults in college.Those productive years he spent with four highly reputable college institutionsin his progressing province of Bulacan made him consider writing this humblepaper. Surprisingly what he found out was, both his present and old collegestudents did not make any marked difference in language proficiency, or thefacility in grammar usage. ―Never mind the kind of English of vocational –technical students, or the welder, masons…‖ as one professor, lamented. ―Butdo not ignore the ‗how bad‘ our teacher education students ‗ English are,‖ sheargued. Can you think of the wisdom behind this eyebrow – raising statement?It‘s but whose English is being criticized with a great populace? The favoritesubject of the mimicry and indignation from students, co-teachers, evaluators,and parents—aren‘t its teacher‘s English? (Gonzales, 2004) This is a perennial problem in which the researcher believes needsspecial attention by almost all teacher education institutions today. Evaluators‘ 7
    • feed back to most student teachers‘ demonstration teaching (or even the usualdaily classroom presentation) would always include faulty grammar on top, nextton teaching methodology, mastery of the subject matter, and classroommanagement. Now that the researcher is already a full-pledged student teachersupervisor, similarly, he sees how relevant developing instructional materialsbe, which would best cater to innumerable student teachers‘ weakness ingrammar usage; since the approach embraces the principle of learning bothlanguage and content. (Brinton, 1997). To reiterate Gonzales‘ sentiment over our teacher education applicants isthat they might be of course familiar with the teaching techniques, approachesand all those things, hence, they get high rate. However, they lost the jobbecause of poor grammar. You would really pity these teacher applicants seeingthem desperately leaving the demonstration room. But who‘s to blame? Thereare several factors include. But let me point you to what most educators havetried out and proven effective at their own respects. Content-Based Instruction(popularly known as the CBI) has been adapted across the country. In thePhilippines, our present basic education curriculum is patterned after thisinnovative approach to teaching and learning. Would-be teachers have toimmediate goals to accomplish, that is, to get a teaching slot, and to pass theLET. Now, to achieve this, one must be essentially competent in bothcommunication skills and their understanding about the content of LET. 8
    • Similarly, Colinares (2002) believes that one of the effective strategiesthat will focus and nourish the interest of teacher education students is theutilization of professional education materials for the grammar review lessons.Needless to state, a prospective teacher has to undergo an intensive review ofgrammar because once in the service, s/he would have to use, if not, teach thesubject. The use of the content education subjects as the springboard forlessons in English enables one to hit two birds with one stone—a review both ingrammar and for the teacher‘ s licensure examination. Thus, this integrativestructuralist trend in language teaching and testing invariably heightens one‘sinterest and subsequently enhances potent learning.STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The primary concern of this study is to find the theoretical, andpedagogical bases of CBI and identify the most frequently used grammaticalstructures of professional education subjects.PURPOSE OF THE STUDY This paper points out two major purposes, as follows: Provide the teachereducation students with relevant instructional materials in learninggrammatical structures; alongside keeping them familiarized with importantprofessional education concepts, and then offer ESL college instructors with 9
    • alternative language teaching-testing materials, other than the conventionalgeneric approach to testing grammar competence.SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY This paper is very useful for several reasons. Different grammarexercises will make students interestingly discover their strengths andweaknesses to various grammatical structures. They may acquire grammaticalproficiency both in reading, and particularly in writing. The instructionalmaterial will make English instructor highly motivated as s/he tries to see therelevance of the approach; since the content is being used as a stimulus inlanguage learning. This may simplify the teaching procedures since answerkeys to all grammar exercises are given right after each area. This wouldcertainly be very helpful to English teachers who also mentor grammar areas(i.e structural analysis and error identification) of LET Review. Moreover, not afew ESL teachers consider the different grammar exercises as effectivesupplementary activities to general approach of teaching and testing ofgrammar proficiency. Finally, ProfEd instructors would benefit a lot sincemeaningful content learning among his/her students is being achieved; andS/he could save instructional time and effort since retention of the learnedmaterial or lesson is being maximized through integration. 10
    • SCOPE AND DELIMITATION This paper primarily involved students who were taking teachereducation programs—Bachelor of Early Childhood Education (BECEd); Bachelorof Elementary Education (BEEd); Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSEd);Bachelor of Science in Industrial Education (BSIEd);and Bachelor of Science inEducation (BSE). They were considered in this study for these reasons: To date the researcher, aside from a professional teacher, also chairs theEducation Department of the College of Mary Immaculate. He also assumessupervisory duty to thirty off-campus practice teachers. Being the trustedEnglish instructor of the college, he appropriately put in top of his mind noneother than, but his very own department. Furthermore, on Education studentcomparatively lags behind other students of Engineering, InformationTechnology, Accountancy, and Nursing as far as grammar proficiency isconcern. The researcher used professional trends education materials liketextbooks, periodicals, journals, interactive multi media devices, as well asinternet-based articles about teaching and education. Although locally authoredmaterials were have become the top choice, foreign education books were alsogiven importance in this study. This is so, since the approach, (CBLI) embodiesfunctional grammar and contextualization (Halliday, 1976). Ten (10) core areas of professional education were included, based on thetable of specifications of the Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET). These 11
    • include, Foundations of Education; Principles, Methods, Approaches,Strategies and Techniques of Teaching; Test, Measurement and Evaluation;Human Growth and Learning Development; Guidance and Counseling; andSocial Philosophies For grammatical structures, the ten top-most weaknesses of students ingrammar were considered; hence, subject-verb agreement, verbs, prepositions,verb tenses-aspect system, conjunctions, prepositions, nouns, phrases andclauses, word form/function, wh-question, and yes- no question. Please refer toAppendix B for the complete table of specifications of the grammar exercises. The grammar exercises though higher levels can also utilize primarilyintended for freshman education students—most particularly for review,mastery, or just for refresher purposes.THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Beginning in 1970‘s interest in the teaching of ‗real-language‘ hasincreased as scholars have become more and more interested in the languageused in various social and cultural settings. As a result, there has been a rapidshift of research and practice from audiolingual and grammar-translationmethods to the exploration of communicative language teaching, and muchattention has been paid to focusing on global and integrative tasks, rather thanon discrete structures. Savignon, (1972) makes clear that ―communicationcannot take place in the absence of structure, or grammar, a set of shared 12
    • assumptions about how language works…‖ Therefore, as he continues, Canaleand Swain (1980) included grammatical competence into their model ofcommunicative competence. However, a review of the research starting from1970‘s (Ellis, 1997) shows that communicative L2 teaching was perceived as adeparture from grammar in favor of focusing on the meaning only. Comparisonof communicative (also referred as meaning-based) to form-based (also referredas structure-based) approaches in L2 teaching shows that communicativelanguage teaching enables students to perform spontaneously, but does notguarantee linguistic accuracy of the utterances. On the other hand, form-basedapproaches focus on the linguistic and grammatical structures, which makesthe speech grammatically accurate. But this accuracy is observed in preparedspeech only, and students lack the ability to produce spontaneous speech. Integrative grammar teaching, which presupposes student‘s interactionwhile learning, cab be viewed as a cognitive process of learning an L2 thatreflects the sociocultural theory proposed by the Russian psychologist Vygotsky(1978). In talking about the development of a child‘s brain and hissocialization, Vygotsky argues that there is a strong relationship betweenlearning and cognitive development, in which cognition develops as a result ofsocial interaction and sharing the responsibility with a parent or a morecompetent person. Similar to Vygotsky‘s theory is the often-criticized Krashen‘s (1981, 1985)Input Hypothesis¸ also well-known as the ―i+1‖ hypothesis. According to thishypothesis, i represents student‘s current level of L2 proficiency and +1 is levelof the linguistic form or function beyond the present student‘s level. Krashen‘s 13
    • Input Hypothesis, and Vygotsky‘s Zone of Proximal Development are basicallydescribing the same cognitive process of social interaction in students‘development. For Krashen, optimal input should be comprehensible, i.e.focused on the meaning and not on the form.CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The concept of developing the proposed grammar exercises for teachereducation students is mainly anchored again, on the law of exercise, as well asseveral approaches and to the second language teaching, to cite—CognitiveAcademic Language Learning; Language Across Curriculum; Theme-BasedApproach; Whole Language Approach; English for Academic and SpecificPurposes; and the newer method, Content-Based Language Instruction. The researcher‘s strategy to utilize principles of teaching and testinggrammar catches perforce the interest and attention of the learner who has theLicensure Examination (LET) in mind. It easily falls within the realm of teachingEnglish for academic purposes and the content–oriented approach to Englishinstruction. (Harvey, 1987). Taking the interest of students into account in terms of over learning ofmaterials past the point of mastery facilitates retention and learning. This leadsto an emphasis of the importance of teaching all aspects of grammar in context. Appropriate contextualization can only be achieved if a teacher finds orcreates realistic situations, language texts that are meaningful to students. 14
    • Thus, contextualization is partly a matter of being faithful to the language, byfinding appropriate examples, and partly a matter of being responsive tostudent‘s needs. (Murcia and Hilles, 1998) Fig. 1 Paradigm of Content-Based Instruction in Language Teaching and Learning The paradigm above graphically illustrates the significant role ofintegrating content in teaching and testing grammar. It is thereforehypothesized that mastery in both ways can be best achieved in an ESLinstructor uses integrative approaches, hence the CBI. This innovativeapproach to language teaching usually come in varied forms respective of thenature and purpose of target language competency.Definition of TermsContent-Based Instruction – is a teaching method that emphasizes learningabout something rather than learning about language. (Davies 2003) 15
    • Content-Based Language Instruction – is an innovative approach in whichsecond language is used as the medium of instruction for mathematics, science,social studies, and other academic subjects. Instruction is usually given by alanguage teacher or by a combination of the language and content teachers.English for Academic Purpose – is the teaching and learning of Englishspecifically to acquire academic proficiency in a particular learning content area.English for Special Purpose – refers to the teaching of a specific genre of mostlytechnical English for students with specific goals, careers or fields of study.Functional Grammar – is the name given to any of a range of functionally-basedapproaches to the scientific study of language.Whole Language Approach – commonly refereed to as Natural Approach learninglanguage in a meaningful context. It is developmental language model based onthe premise that youngsters acquire language (speaking, reading, and writing asnaturally as they learn to walk and talk, when they are invited to engage in self-motivating activities that are stimulating, interesting, social, meaning-based,purposeful, interactive and most of all enjoyable.) 16
    • CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE This part discusses thoroughly the readings done by the researcher as aresult of his surveys of professional books on language teaching and learning,unpublished theses and dissertations, ESL periodicals, web-based articles, andlocally published textbooks, workbooks and worktexts. This chapter posits twomajor concerns: the rationale and development of Content-Based Instruction,and the theoretical issues in utilizing functional grammar to both languageteaching and testing. Locally made studies were also surveyed; that is todetermine the effect of this innovative approach among ESL teachers,particularly to college teaching. Specifically, the presentation was organized in aconceptual order. First part looks at the approach (the CBI)—the proponents;the origins and precursors; the pedagogical definitions; the rationale; thelinguistic supports; related research conducted; the pedagogical implications;strengths and limitations. Moreover, the researcher also surveyed relatedstudies that have been conducted locally and internationally. Second part presents an in-depth discussion about the grammar usage,which includes a closer look into definitions given by languageexperts; current issues on the teaching and testing of grammar in the tertiarylevel. Alongside with this, the researcher also surveyed six different locallymade worktext use in the teaching of grammar to college students. 17
    • Definitions and Origins of CBI What do LAC, WLA, EAP, ESP, EST, CALLA, CALP, CBLI, CoBaLTT havein common? Obviously, well-read ESL teachers would all agree that they‘re allbut initials buzzed in the field of language teaching and learning. Second,researchers who share similar interest in studying innovative approaches inintermarrying content and language in an ESL classroom could easily tell thatall these terminologies are anchored upon the principle of ―integration‖. Whileknown in various names, one could specifically point it out that all theseapproaches are under the umbrella of what most language experts call Content-Based Instruction. Different experts in pedagogical linguistics like Blanton (1992), Brinton,Snow & Wesche (1989), Crandall (1992) to name a few share a general conceptbehind CBI. To sum it up, Content-Based Instruction is "...an approach tolanguage instruction in which the second or foreign language is used as amedium of instruction for mathematics, science, social studies and otheracademic subjects. It is the vehicle used for teaching and acquiring subjectspecific knowledge.‖ (Crandall, 2006). Furthermore, it is based on theunderlying principle that successful material in a meaningful contextualizedform, with the primary focus on acquiring information and knowledge. Likewise, Prof. Niki Peachey, in The British Council (2006) relates thatthe focus of CBI lesson is on the topic or subject matter. During the lesson, thestudents are focused on learning about something. This could be anything thatinterests them from a serious science subject to their favorite pop star or even a 18
    • topical news story or film. They learn about this subject using the languagethey are trying to learn, rather than their native language, as a tool fordeveloping knowledge and so they develop their linguistic ability in the targetlanguage. This is thought to be a more natural way of developing languageability and one that corresponds more to the way learners originally learn theirfirst language. Parallel to Peachey‘s description, the Center for Advanced Research onLanguage Acquisition, (CARLA 2006), of the University of Minnesotaenumerated the origins and definitions of CBI from different researchers.Brinton & Maste (1997, p.2) for instance defined it as, ―…the integration ofparticular content with language teaching aims...the concurrent teaching ofacademic subject matter and second language skills". They further emphasizedthat, ―…CBI views the target language largely as the vehicle through whichsubject matter content is learned rather than as the immediate object of study".Wesche (1993) on the other hand, claimed that, ―…CBI is aimed at thedevelopment of use-oriented second and foreign language skills and isdistinguished by the concurrent learning of a specific content and relatedlanguage use skills‖. What qualifies as content in CBI? CARLA (2006) identifies commonviewpoints of the experts as ―a curriculum in which concepts were taught throughthe foreign language ... appropriate to the grade level of the students..." Curtainand Pesola (1994) 19
    • While Genesee (1994) suggests that content ...need not be academic; itcan include any topic, theme, or non-language issue of interest or importance tothe learners. Met (1991) proposes that "... content in content-based programsrepresents material that is cognitively engaging and demanding for the learner,and is material that extends beyond the target language or target culture" She further claimed that,"...what we teach in any kind of content-basedcourse is not the content itself but some form of the discourse of that content—not,for example, literature itself (which can only be experienced) but how to analyzeliterature...for every body of content that we recognize as such—like the physicalworld or human cultural behavior—there is a discourse community—like physicsor anthropology—which provides us with the means to analyze, talk about, andwrite about that content...Thus, for teachers the problem is how to acculturatestudents to the relevant discourse communities, and for students the problem ishow to become acculturated to those communities" (Eskey, 1997). With regards to its origin, Swain & Johnson (1997) accounts that theapproach is most often associated with the genesis of language immersioneducation in Canada in 1965. However, they argued that content-basedinstruction is hardly a new phenomenon. Similarly, Crandall (1992) of the University of Maryland BaltimoreCounty reported that the number of language minority students in the UnitedStates is dramatically escalating. Consequently, the American classroom nowis multiethnic, and multilingual at all levels. In response, a number of programmodels have been developed to meet the needs of language programs thatintegrate academic content into language instruction. 20
    • Related to Crandall‘s report, Dr. Thomas G. Sticht, President and SeniorScientist of Applied Behavior & Cognitive Sciences, Inc. traced the root of CBI inthe early 40‘s. He revealed that in World War II, the military services conductedextensive programs aimed at providing new recruits with reading skills of afunctional nature. Soldiers and sailors learned to read so they couldcomprehend material about military life. Because the time for teaching literacywas very limited, usually less than three months, the reading instructionalmaterials had the complexity of materials typically encountered by the end ofthe fourth grade of public education, but they did not cover the breadth ofcontent that a typical fourth grader would have encountered. Rather, theytaught reading by emphasizing a relatively narrow body of content knowledgeabout the military. Further, the readers were designed to build on the newrecruits experiences and prior knowledge about the world acquired beforeentering service. For instance, the Private Pete series starts with Pete at homeon the farm. Then he goes to a recruiter and signs up to join the Army, rides atrain to camp and is assigned to a barracks, and so forth. Because that is theprocedure the vast majority of new recruits in literacy programs followed injoining the Army in the 1940s, this was content: prior knowledge-- that theycould talk about and comprehend, but they could not necessarily read wordslike "farm," "recruiter," "train," or "barracks." (NCSALL, 2005) Natural language acquisition occurs in context; natural language is neverlearned divorced from meaning, and content-based instruction provides a 21
    • context for meaningful communication to occur (Curtain, 1995; Met, 1991);second language acquisition increases with content-based language instruction,because students learn language best when there is an emphasis on relevant,meaningful content rather than on the language itself; "People do not learnlanguages and then use them, but learn languages by using them" however,both form and meaning are important and are not readily separable in languagelearning (e.g., Lightbrown & Spada, 1993; Met, 1991; Wells, 1994). CBI promotes negotiation of meaning, which is known to enhancelanguage acquisition (students should negotiate both form and content)(Lightbrown & Spada, 1993). Second language acquisition is enhanced by comprehensible input(Krashen, 1982; 1985), which is a key pedagogical technique in content-basedinstruction; however, comprehensible input alone does not suffice—studentsneed form-focused content instruction (an explicit focus on relevant andcontextually appropriate language forms to support content learning) (Lyster,1987; Met, 1991; Swain, 1985). Cummins (1981) notion of Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency(CALP) as contrasted with Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS)shows that students need to be learning content while they are developingCALP; there is not enough time to separate language and content learning; 22
    • postponing content instruction while students develop more advanced(academic) language is not only impractical, but it also ignores students needs,interests, and cognitive levels (consider severe time constraints on languagestudy prescribed by U.S. higher education, (Byrnes, 2000). CBI provides opportunities for Vygotskian-based concepts thought tocontribute to second language acquisition—negotiation in the Zone of ProximalDevelopment, the use of "private speech" (internally directed speech for problem-solving and rehearsal), and student appropriation of learning tasks (e.g.,Lantolf, 1994; Lantolf & Appel, 1994). Language learning becomes moreconcrete rather than abstract (as in traditional language instruction where thefocus is on the language itself) (Genesee, 1994). The integration of language and content in instruction respects thespecificity of functional language use (it recognizes that meaning changesdepending upon context) (Genesee, 1994). More sophisticated, complexlanguage is best taught within a framework that focuses on complex andauthentic content. CBI lends itself to cooperative learning, which has been shown to resultin improved learning (Slavin, 1995; Crandall, 1993). CBI approaches, whichpromote the importance of learning strategies, provide the curricular resources 23
    • for development of the strategic language and content learner (OMalley &Chamot, 1990). CBI lends itself to the incorporation of a variety of thinking skills, andlearning strategies which lead to rich language development, e.g., informationgathering skills—absorbing, questioning; organizing skills—categorizing,comparing, representing; analyzing skills—identifying main ideas, identifyingattributes and components, identifying relationships, patterns; generating skills—inferring, predicting, estimating (ASCD, Dimensions of Thinking) (Curtain, 1995;Met, 1991). Research on extensive reading in a second language shows that readingcoherent extended materials leads to improved language abilities, greatercontent-area learning, and higher motivation (Elley, 1991); the GeorgetownGerman program has based the curriculum on texts and genre and reportexciting results in students speaking and writing proficiency Support for CBIfrom Educational and Cognitive Psychology Anderson (1990; 1993) has proposed a cognitive learning theory forinstruction that integrates attention to content and language. In this theoryskills (including language) and knowledge follow a general sequence of states oflearning from the cognitive stage (students notice and attend to information inworking memory; they engage in solving basic problems with the language and 24
    • concepts theyre acquiring) to the associative stage (errors are corrected andconnections to related knowledge are strengthened; knowledge and skills becomeproceduralized) to the autonomous stage (performance becomes automatic,requiring little attentional effort; in this stage cognitive resources are feed up forthe next cycle of problem solving, concept learning). The presentation of coherent and meaningful information leads to deeperprocessing, which results in better learning (Anderson, 1990) and informationthat is more elaborated is learned and recalled better. Information that has agreater number of connections to related information promotes better learning(it is more likely that content will have a greater number of connections to otherinformation) (Anderson, 1990). Facts and skills taught in isolation need much more practice andrehearsal before they can be internalized or put into long term memory;coherently presented information (thematically organized) is easier to rememberand leads to improved learning (Singer, 1990); information that has a greaternumber of connections to related information enhances learning, and contentacts as the driving force for the connections to be made. Content-based instruction develops a wider range of discourse skills thandoes traditional language instruction (because of the incorporation of highercognitive skills); Byrnes (2000) notes the increasing demands for high levels of 25
    • literacy in languages other than English. When planned thoughtfully, content-based activities have the possibility of leading to "flow experiences," i.e., theoptimal experiences emerge when personal skills are matched by high challenge(Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, in Grabe & Stoller, 1997 and Stoller, 2002). Content-based instruction provides for cognitive engagement; tasks thatare intrinsically interesting and cognitively engaging will lead to more and betteropportunities for second language acquisition; this is particularly importantwhen one considers the inherent complexity of adult learning (Byrnes, 2000).Content-based instruction emphasizes a connection to real life, real world skills(Curtain, 1995); in content-based classes, students have more opportunities touse the content knowledge and expertise they bring to class (they activate theirprior knowledge, which leads to increased learning of language and contentmaterial). Joann Crandall of the University of Baltimore County, in CAL Digest(2006) concluded that integrated and content instruction offers a means bywhich English as a second language (ESL) students can continue theiracademic or cognitive development while they are also acquiring academiclanguage proficiency. It also offers a means by which foreign language studentscan develop fuller proficiency in the foreign language they are studying. Inforeign language or two-way bilingual immersion programs, in which a portionof the curriculum is taught through the foreign language, some type ofintegrated language and content appears to be essential. 26
    • Research conducted in a variety of program models (Grabe & Stoller,1997) has shown that content-based instruction results in language learning,content learning, increased motivation and interest levels, and greateropportunities for employment (where language abilities are necessary)—theresearch has emerged in ESL K-12 contexts , FL K-12 (immersion and bilingualprograms), post-secondary FL and ESL contexts, and FLAC programs. CBIallows for greater flexibility to be built into the curriculum and activities; thereare more opportunities to adjust to the needs and interests of students. ERIC Digest (2006) also supports Sticth‘s (2006) claim on the principle ofCBI. ERIC further emphasized that an integrated language and contentinstruction provides opportunities for learners to acquire a new languagethrough the study of academic discipline such as mathematics, science andhistory. Also known as content-centered or contend based language learning(CCLL/CBLL), this approach is an effective way for both English languagelearners and learners of other languages to develop their language skills andtheir academic skills at the same time. Programs that use content-centeredlanguage learning include total and partial immersion, two-way (dual)immersion, bilingual education, and sheltered English. Stitch in NCSALL (2006) reflects that in adult education, including thelearning of English for speakers of other languages (ESOL), content-based 27
    • instruction is an instruction that focuses upon the substance or meaning of thecontent that is being taught. He refuted that this is in contrast to "generalliteracy" or "general language" instruction, which use topics or subject mattersimply as a vehicle for teaching reading and writing, or the grammar or other"mechanics" of English language, as general processes (Brinton, Snow, &Wesche, 1989). Various "general literacy" programs may also emphasize thelearning of general processes such as "learning to learn," "critical thinking," or"problem solving" skills. In such instruction, the emphasis is upon developingthe general processes, and the content that is used is generally treated as ofonly incidental interest. Niki Peachey, teacher, trainer, and materials writer of The BritishCouncil (2006), identified the advantages and disadvantages of CBI. Among theadvantages, he claimed that, this can make learning a language moreinteresting and motivating. Students can use the language to fulfill a realpurpose, which can make students both more independent and confident.Furthermore, students can also develop a much knowledge of the worldthrough CBI, which can feedback into improving, and supporting their generaleducational needs. CBI is also very popular among EAP (English for Academic Purposes)teachers as it helps students to develop valuable study skills such as notetaking, summarizing and extracting key information from texts. Takinginformation from different sources, re-evaluating and restructuring that 28
    • information can help students to develop very valuable thinking skills that canthen be transferred to other subjects. Though the approach is perceived to be very effective, yet offers severalchallenges to ESL/ESOL teachers. Again The British Council identified fourmajor limitations, like it does not focused on language learning, some studentsmay feel confused or may even feel that they aren‘t improving their languageskills. Deal with this by including some form of language focused follow-upexercises to help draw attention to linguistic features within the materials andconsolidate any difficult vocabulary or grammar points. Particularly in monolingual classes, the overuse of the student‘s nativelanguage during parts of the lesson can be a problem. Because the lessonexplicitly focused on language practice students find it much easier and quickerto use their mother tongue. Try sharing your rationale with students andexplain the benefits of using the target language rather than their mothertongue. It can be hard to find information sources and text that lower levels canunderstand. Also the sharing of information in the target language may causegreat difficulties. A possible way around this at lower levels is either to usetexts in the student‘s native language or then get them use the target languagefor the sharing of information and end product, or to have texts in the target 29
    • language, but allow the students to present the end product in their nativelanguage. These options should reduce the level of challenge. Some students may copy directly from the source texts they use to gettheir information. Avoid this by designing tasks that demand students evaluatethe information in some way, to draw conclusions or actually to put it to somepractical use. Having information sources that have conflicting information canalso be helpful; as students have to decide which information they agree with ormost believe.The Precursors of Content-Based Instruction This is to reiterate what most language experts claimed about theexistence behind the principle of integration across discipline, and likewise,emphasize that concept behind CBI is, actually no longer foreign to Englishlanguage teaching. (Crandall, 1992; Brinton, 1997; & Stitch, 2006). Theapproach may somehow package in different box, but shows semblances insubstance; hence, the program models by Joann Crandall. Alongside withCrandall‘s models, the researcher personally compiled these related ―integrativeapproaches‖ and includes specific background for each. The first tenapproaches may have popularized prior to the widespread utilization of CBIacross the globe. Likewise, newer modifications of CBI would be dealt later ofthe presentation, such as Language Across the Curriculum; Theme-BasedApproach; Whole Language Approach; Cognitive Academic Language Learning 30
    • Approach Cognitive; English for Academic Purposes; English for SpecificPurposes; Sheltered Subject Matter Teaching; Sheltered Instruction; and Adjunct ModelLanguages Across the Curriculum (LAC) The LAC movement follows the example set by the Writing Across theCurriculum (WAC) movement of the 1980s, which sought to use writing as acentral learning tool in classes outside the English department. Rather thanrelegating writing instruction to classes in literature or composition, WACprovides advice and assistance to students for the inculcation of the skillsneeded for writing in each curricular specialty. Similarly, LAC works withfaculty to identify the specific vocabulary and genres that students need inorder to function effectively in another language in their respective disciplines(Fichera & Straight, 1997). LAC also draws upon the content-based language instruction movementof the 1990s (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 1989; Krueger & Ryan, 1993; Stryker &Leaver, 1997). Instruction that emphasizes purposeful comprehension andcommunicative production yields superior receptive and expressive accuracy, 31
    • complexity, and fluency. In brief, students who learn language for a purposelearn it better. LAC aims to facilitate the use of languages in a variety of meaningfulcontexts and to motivate and reward students for using their multilingual skillsin every class they take at each level in the university curriculum, thuspreparing them for the cross-cultural and multilingual demands andopportunities of a global society (Consortium for Languages Across theCurriculum, 1996).Theme-Based Approach (TBA) In these programs, a language curriculum is developed around selectedtopics drawn from one content area (e.g. marketing) or from across thecurriculum (e.g. pollution and the environment). The goal is to assist learners indeveloping general academic language skills through interesting and relevantcontent. Similarly, Brewer (2000), claims that theme-based approach is believedto be the most productive in helping teachers design a developmentallyappropriate curriculum since the idea of integration is not a new one, ever sincethe turn of the century when John Dewey (1859-1952) advocated theorganization of curriculum around projects that would interest and involvechildren. This is grounded upon the premise that children in elementary days 32
    • had their reading class first thing in the morning, math right before lunch, andscience, in the afternoon. Yet when children learn outside of school, they learnin wholes. For example, a child visiting tide pools could learn about manythings at once: language arts (learning vocabulary for the animals and plantsof the tide pools); physical skills (staying on top of the slippery rocks);classification (noticing which animals are related; the environment (noticingpollution or litter); family stories (hearing parents tell about when they visitedthese tide pools as children); and so on. Thus, a child‘s learning experiencesoutside school are not divisible into subject-matter areas. She furthersuggested that organizing learning experiences around a theme can beproductive but if thematic teaching is to be successful, the theme must becarefully selected, activities carefully planned, and evaluation of the theme andof individual children‘s progress carefully monitored.Whole Language Approach (WLA) According to Smith (1982), whole language approach is commonlyreferred to as natural approach of language learning in a meaningful context. Itis developmental language model based on the premise that youngsters acquirelanguage (speaking, reading, and writing) as naturally as they learn to walk andtalk; when they are invited to engage in self-motivating activities that arestimulating, interesting, social, meaning-based, purposeful, interactive andmost of all, enjoyable. 33
    • Goodman (1986) supports the definition above. He said that thephilosophy of whole language is based on the concept that students need toexperience language as an integrated whole. It focuses on the need for anintegrated approach to language instruction within a context that is meaningfulto students. The approach is consistent with integrated language and contentinstruction as both emphasize meaningful engagement and authentic languageuse, and both link oral and written language development (Blanton, 1992).Whole language strategies that have been implemented in content-centeredlanguage classes include dialogue journals, reading response journals, learninglogs, process-based writing, and language experiences stories (Crandall, 1992). In relation to this, Goodman, Calkins, and Atwell (1986) and Smith(1987) in Villamin, et.al. (1994), identified the attributes of whole languageapproach as follows: A language arts is an integrated curriculum; languagearts is learner-centered; language and life experiences are inseperable; languagelearning is natural; language is used under real communication situations toexpress ideas and feelings, thus encouraging social and personal development. According to these researchers, whole language approach has twofundamental goals, that is: (1) to use communication situations to express ideasand feelings, and (2) to foster love of reading for enjoyment. 34
    • In this integrative approach, the teacher and the students workcollaboratively. Authentic texts or real children‘s literature—fairy tales, andfolktales, fables, legends, myths, poems, parables, and riddles—are used forreading purposes. The teacher provides a lot of group interaction through avariety of strategies: speech choir, jazz chants, chamber theater, reader‘stheater, and finger plays. Comprehension is supported by active interpretation,and is also enhanced by activating prior knowledge, using advance organizersand prediction techniques. Listening and speaking activities pave the way forsetting the purpose, surveying the text, predicting outcomes, and consideringliterary elements.Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) This approach combines language, content, and learning strategyinstruction into a transitional ESL approach for upper elementary andsecondary students of intermediate or advanced English proficiency (Chamot &O‘Malley, 1987).English for Academic Purposes (EAP) The emergence of subject content-based (as opposed to skill-based) EAPcourses in the 1980s (Brinton, Snow & Wesche 1989) raises the issue of whichtypes of skills and knowledge are necessary for EAP trainers to deliver effective 35
    • and professional courses for ESL/EFL students intending to follow collegedegree programs in English speaking countries. By definition, English foracademic purpose is an integrative approach to teaching and learning in orderto achieve proficiency in a particular content area using the English languageas the medium of instruction. Krashen (1985) identified what he calls a‗transition problem‘ to a perceived gap in the English Language and study skillsabilities of learners who have passed through traditional language classes, andthose required for study purposes within universities. He argues that subjectcontent-based curses can impart both subject knowledge and languagecompetence at the same time. More recently, the work of Kasper (1997) has greatly strengthened theevidence for effectiveness of content-based courses. She has reported bothimproved language and content performance among students exposed tocontent-based EAP programs, higher scores on measures of reading proficiency,and higher pass rates on ESL courses. She also provides quantitative evidencethat such students establish and retain performance advantage over studentsexposed to non-content-based EAP training. He work supports the views ofBenesch 1988, Guyer & Peterson 1988, and Snow & Brinton 1988, thatcontent-based programs facilitate ESL students‘ transition to academicmainstream college courses, increasing the likelihood that such students willgain a college degree. The trend towards content-based EAP training program presents a clearchallenge to EAP instructors. How much longer will EAP training be done by 36
    • instructors who may lack specific background knowledge of their learner‘sspecialist disciplines? How much longer will the traditional emphasis ontraining in language and study skills be regarded as adequate in the face of thegrowing body persuasive evidence for the effectiveness of subject content-basedprograms? It may therefore be necessary for EAP trainers to possess a certainlevel of background knowledge in their students‘ academic subjects in order tomeet this challenge. Timothy Bell of Kuwait University in The Internet TESL Journal (2002)reveals the revised version of his paper given at the British Council – LAN-ECSCS during a Project Conference in Bali on December 1996. The programconsisted of content-based English Language and study skills training in thefield of Biotechnology. The research, ―Do EAP Teachers Require Knowledge ofTheir Students‘ Specialist Academic Subjects?‖ aimed to explore the issue of howmuch, if any, subject content knowledge is required for EAP teachers tosuccessfully prepare their learners for academic study at tertiary level. It willbegin by considering the research evidence for the effectiveness of subjectcontent-based courses, and then proceed to describe two EAP programs givenat the Universities of Indonesia. Bell (2002), points out that in traditional, skill-based, EAP courses, it has generally been thought that the trainer does notrequire specialized academic knowledge of the learner‘s major subject of study.This is because such training focused on developing language and study skillsand not on the academic subject itself. The learners, it is often argued, an dealwith complexities of terminology and ambiguities of subject content that may bebeyond the trainer‘s knowledge of the specialist subject. EAP trainers were 37
    • typically told to exploit queries about subject content, so as to provideopportunities for the students to develop their fluency, produce extendedspoken discourse, and effectively share their knowledge of the subject.English for Specific Purposes (ESP) Laurence Anthony of the Department of Information and ComputerEngineering, Faculty of Engineering, of Okayama University of Science reportedthat from the early 1960‘s, English for Specific Purposes (ESP) has grown asone of the most prominent areas of EFL teaching today. Its development isreflected in the increasing number of universities offering an MA in ESP and thenumber of ESP courses offered overseas students in English speakingcountries. There is now a well-established international journal dedicated toESP discussion, ―English for Specific Purposes: An international journal‖, andthe ESP SIG groups of the IATEL and TESOL are always active at their nationalconferences. In Japan, for instance, the ESP movement has shown a slow butdefinite growth over the past few years. In particular, increased interest hasbeen spurred as a result of the Mombusho‘s decision in 1994 to largely handover control of university curriculums to the universities themselves. This hasled to a rapid growth in English courses. In the Philippines, ESP had been a controversial issue particularly in theeighties. Lucero (1984) in Carreon (1992) reported that some of the problemsassociated with ESP ―theory‖ stemmed mainly from confusion and disagreement 38
    • over the definition of English for Specific Purposes: What is ESP—is it anapproach, a method, or a theory? Is it the teaching of technical and scientificlanguage? Are its aims purely utilitarian? How specific is it—are the studentstaught English only for the performance of engineering? How much knowledgeof, say, engineering should the ESP teacher have? Why can‘t the ESP teacherconfine herself to the teaching of language instead of venturing into thediscipline of science and technology? In her report, Carreon (1992), roughly classified the definitions and viewsabout ESP as register analysis, ESP as a rhetorical or discourse approach, ESPas a communicative approach, and ESP as target situation analysis. She further argued that those who viewed ESP in terms of registeranalysis focused on the teaching of the grammatical and lexical features ofscientific and technical language. Lacking the sophisticated background forlinguistic analysis, however may have interpreted this mainly as teachinggrammar using technical or scientific subject matter; others interpret it asteaching the vocabulary items their students encounter in their engineering ofbiology class. Now, those who defined ESP in terms of the rhetorical approach, Carreon(1992) explained that these advocates acknowledged the importance of teachingFilipino students to view language in the context of discourse units and 39
    • situations. Lessons focus on the teaching of rhetorical forms acknowledgedbeing the most commonly used in science, technology, and business. Inaddition to textual features, the more enlightened view of this approach stressesthe importance of teaching second language learners the organization andlogical process underlying particular discourse forms. It, however, has placed arather heavy emphasis on production and the completion of whole tasks ortexts. As a result, ESP has been viewed as mainly task-oriented and product-oriented. On the other hand, ESP‘s association with the communicative approachhad resulted in creative and lively English classes. This is one feature of ESPthat has been well-received by Filipino language teachers. In fact, some of themaccording to Carreon (1992) tend to think that the two approaches are one andthe same. Unfortunately, the focus on the use of language for communicationhad also become associated with the notion of de-emphasizing grammar of withteaching grammar ―incidentally‖. Many teachers who have known no otherapproach to language teaching than the grammatical and structural often usethis last point as an argument against ESP. Their assumption in this case isthat linguistic competence or the knowledge of rules and correct linguisticforms necessarily precedes language use. So that those who may accept ESP―in principle‖ and accept the communicative approach ―in principle‖ do so onlyas far as they apply to Filipino student who are already fairly proficient in theEnglish language. For students who can barely express themselves in English,many of those teachers diagnosed that what they need is more practice ingrammar, not ESP. 40
    • Finally, Carreon (1992) recommended that there is a great need for needsanalysis. According to her, there is much argument, however, regarding whoseneeds are to be investigated, how the analysis is to be conducted; what modelshould be used; and how the results ought to be used. More interesting is howthe interpretation of ―target situation‖ and ―authenticity‖ has sometimesfollowed the extreme case of using whole texts lifted directly from textbooks,professional books, and journals without consideration for factors such asintended audience, level of difficulty, potential for creative language lessons. Carreon (1992) concluded in her report that to a non-restricting view ofESP and the integration of educational goals in ESP program, the acquisition ofa solid background in basic linguistics and the principles and practices ofsecond language learning and teaching appears to be the key to a betterunderstanding of ESP and consequently, it is hope, to more effective ESPteaching. Another program model related to CBI is the sheltered subject matterteaching. Crandall (2006) in Brinton, Snow & Wesche, 1989 describes that thisapproach involves adapting the language of texts or tasks and use of certainmethods familiar to language teachers (demonstrations, visuals, graphicorganizers, or cooperative work) to make instruction more accessible to studentsof different English proficiency levels. This type of instruction is also called 41
    • sheltered English or language sensitive content instruction and is given by theregular classroom or content teacher, or by a language teacher with specialexpertise in another academic area. On the other hand, in a sheltered instruction, a content curriculum isadapted to accommodate students‘ limited proficiency in the language ofinstruction. This model was originally developed for elementary foreignlanguage immersion programs to enable some portion of the curriculum to betaught through the foreign language (Geneseee, 1987 in Crandall 2006). It iscommonly used in immersion and two-way bilingual programs (Met, 1991) andhas been adapted for use in second language programs with large numbers oflimited English proficient students or intermediate or advanced Englishproficiency. This model links a specific language learning course with a contentcourse in which both second language learners and native English speakers areenrolled (Crandall, 2006). The courses share a content base, but the focus ofinstruction differs. The language teacher emphasizes language skills, such asacademic or writing, while the content teacher focuses on traditional academicconcepts. This model requires substantial coordination between the languageand content teacher; usually the ESL teacher makes the extra effort ofbecoming familiar with the content. An adjunct program is usually limited tocases where student shave language skills that are sufficiently advance to 42
    • enable them to participate in content instruction with English speakingstudents. Margueritte Ann Snow, professor at California State University & DonnaM. Brinton, Academic Coordinator of EFL Service Courses and lecturer in theDepartment of Applied Linguistics & TESOL at the University of California inCATESOL News 1986 defined adjunct model of language instruction as a cross-curricular instructional program designed to meet the linguistic and academicneeds of university students. In this model, students are enrolled concurrentlyin two linked courses—a language course (e.g. Intermediate ESL) and a contentcourse (e.g., Introductory Psychology). The rationale underlying the model isthat the two courses share a content base and complement each other in termsof mutually-coordinated assignments (Wesche , 1985 in Snow & Brinton, 1986).An important feature of the model is the integration of nonnative speakers withnative speakers in the content course to insure the authenticity of the academicdemands placed upon the students. Equally important, however, is the―sheltering‖ of non-native speakers in the ESL component in the model. In thisway, the particular language needs of second language learners, such aspersistent grammar and writing error patterns, can be addressed directly. They further explained that the adjunct model of language instructionprovides an ideal framework for an English for academic purpose setting. Withthe focus in the language class on essential modes of academic writing,academic reading, study skill development, and treatment of persistent 43
    • structural errors, students are being prepared to transfer these skills to theircontent courses. The activities of the content-based language class are gearedto stimulate students to think and learn in the target language by requiringthem to synthesize information from the content-area lectures and readings.These materials provide content for students to discuss and write about, thusproviding and authentic context for integrating the four traditional languageskills. An underlying pedagogical assumption of this framework is that studentmotivation in the language class will increase in direct proportion o therelevance of its activities, and, in turn, student success in this content coursewill reflect the carefully coordinated efforts of this team approach.Furthermore, the adjunct model offers ESL students a critical, but oftenneglected, option. It gives them access to native speaker interaction and theauthentic, unsimplified language of academic test and lectures in the contentcourse, yet enables them to benefit from ESL instruction where their particularlanguage needs can be met. According to Crandall, (2006) there are a variety of strategies andtechniques used in content-centered second language instruction. Here, thediscussion will be limited only to three types of strategies—cooperative learningand other grouping strategies, task-based or experiential learning, and graphicorganizers—that increase attention to academic language learning, contributeto content learning, and encourage development of thinking and study skills. 44
    • In cooperative learning, students of different linguistic and educationalbackgrounds and different skill levels work together on a common task for acommon goal in either the language or the content classroom. Cooperativegroups encourage students to communicate, to share insights, test hypotheses,and jointly construct knowledge. Depending on their language proficiency,students can be assigned various roles as facilitator, recorder, reporter, orillustrator. Other grouping strategies involve peer tutoring or pairing a secondlanguage learner with a more English-proficient peer. While in the task-based or experiential learning method, appropriatecontexts are provided for developing thinking and study skills as well aslanguage and academic concepts for students of different levels of languageproficiency. Students learn by carrying out specific tasks or projects: Forexample, ―doing science‖ and not just reading about it. (Roseberry, Warren, &Conant, 1992 in Crandall, 2006). Villamin, Salazar, Bala & Suñga (1994), suggested five steps used inconstructing a graphic organizer as follows: Identify the major objectives and concepts to be taught; Summarize the key concepts in the form of a diagram or a table; Have the students explain the graphic organizer. Ask them to discussthe relationship among its parts. Have them provide some more examples; 45
    • Have them use graphic organizers in surveying text. Present anincomplete diagram then ask the students to complete it by recalling or locatingappropriate terms and concepts; and Give more examples for practice until the students learn to make graphicorganizers, which will aid them in making simple outlines. This part tries to present the surveys and reviews of related researchesand studies, which have been conducted about the use of content-basedapproach to language teaching and learning. The journal articles as well as e-zines were reviewed in order to support of its pedagogical implications bothlocally and across the globe. Peter Master (1991), an associate professor in the Department ofLinguistics and Language Development at San Jose State University in SanJose, California made a report about experimental content-based adjunctprogram. The study, which was created by The English Institute at CañadaCollege in California, was primarily for resident ESL students. The contentareas included the social sciences, western civilization, the natural and physicalsciences, and mathematics, each of which had an adjunct ESL component. Thestudents were initially required to take the whole series of courses, including acollege study skills class, and a counselor worked with the students to helpwith personal problem during the program. 46
    • The apparent success of this pilot program speaks to the effectiveness ofboth content-based instruction and the adjunct (or team teaching) model. Italso demonstrates how the principles of EAP (English for Academic Purposes)instruction are perfectly reflected in the content-based approach, which relieson needs analysis, (student, institutional, and professional), authenticmaterials, and the communicative approach to language teaching in addressingthe language needs of nonnative-English-speaking students in publiceducation. Pally Marcia‘s (in ERIC, March 1999) paper entitle ―Sustained Content-Based Teaching for Academic Skills Development in ESL/EFL‖ discusses therationale for using content-based instruction (CBI) to teach English foracademic purposes to non-native speakers, drawing on recent research andtheory and on both personal experience and s small-scale study of collegestudents. Discussion begins with a look at college and graduates students‘needs for both language skills and skills in argumentation, particularly in theconventions of Anglo-American rhetoric. Topics addressed here include,political, and psychosocial questions about English hegemony and the questionof who should learn these rhetorical conventions. Literature on sustained CBIis then reviewed, offering support for it from experience with studentfrustration, research on its effectiveness, and interviews with students who hadstudied English in sustained CBI classes. 47
    • Loreta Kasper‘s New Technologies, New Literacies: Focus DisciplineResearch and ESL Learning Communities on Language Learning & Technology(Sept. 2000) describes a study of a content-based instructional model thatengages high intermediate English-as –a-Second Language students insustained content study within collaborative learning communities and usesinformation technology resources to hone linguistic, academic, socioaffective,and metacognitive skills through an activity called focus discipline. In Forum, Oct-Dec 1997, ―Into, Through, and Beyond: A Framework toDevelop Content-Based Material‖, Donna M. Brinton & Christine Holten‘ sdescribed a lesson planning framework that content-based instruction teacherscan adapt to their instructional materials, student populations, and classroomsettings. Applying the framework to an authentic reading passage, the samplelesson illustrates how teachers can develop activities that supplement thecontent, increase student access to and comprehension of core materials, andfoster students‘ linguistic skills. Fredricka Stoller in Forum (Oct-Dec 1997) provides a rationale forcontent-based instruction and demonstration how project can be integratedinto content-based English-as-a-Second-Language classrooms. In her article,―Project Work: A Means to Promote Language Content‖, she outlined the primarycharacteristics of project work, introduced project work in its variousconfigurations, and presents practical guidelines for sequencing and developinga project. 48
    • Jodi Crandall, in her ESL Magazine (July-Aug 1998) discusses the new,expanded role of elementary English-as-a-Second Language (ESL) teachers,focusing on content-based language instruction in elementary ESL andexamining the challenges of content-based language instruction for elementaryESL (e.g. scarcity of good materials, and limited class time). Her article ―TheExpanding Role of the Elementary ESL Teacher: Doing More than TeachingLanguage‖ described how to develop two sidebars thematic units and present asimple thematic unit. Wood Richard in ADFL Bulletin (Win 1999) suggested in his article, ―TheImperative of Integrating Language Instruction with Instruction in Other Fields‖,that, in order to prepare college students for the global marketplace, languagelearning must be more fully integrated with the liberal arts. This meansrethinking the relationship between language competency and the study oflanguages and literature. Literature in the target language should be studied atthe advanced level, because this offers students a chance to learn the subtletiesof the language. ―Trends and Issues in Content-Based Instruction‖ by Marguirette AnnSnow in Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (1998) contains a review ofliterature on content-based second-language instruction, in both English andother second languages, describes the impact of content-based instruction on 49
    • instructional, assessment, and teacher-training practices and examines its roleas a setting for research and methodological innovation. It concludes with adiscussion of ongoing challenges. The Philippine Normal University houses several studies related tocontent-based instruction. It is interesting to note that these are but recentstudies. This is not doubt since the approach was only introduced to Philippinelanguage teaching context just a decade ago. The researcher surveyed twelve(12) related studies from 1995 to 2005. Tequillo (1995) identified in her prototype ESP-based lessons thelanguage functions in science and mathematics needed by teacher educationstudents. To determine the scope of the lesson, she developed her own needsanalysis through Survey Questionnaire. Cortez (2002) used contents from Science/Nutrition and Dietetics,Mathematics, Psychology, Education, Research, Tourism and Values Education.In developing her materials, she made use of authentic materials taken fromnewspapers, magazines, brochures, journals, and Internet downloads in whichshe claimed as illustrative of single-text, multi-text, and whole chapterstrategies. 50
    • Estacio (2002) reported in her ESP-Based Instructional Materialsrevealed that, fourth year high school students need to learn the correct form ofthe following grammatical structures: subject-verb agreement, verb tenses, andverb forms, transitional devices, prepositions, articles, modals, fragments andadverbs. She further concluded that students need to understand how Englishoperates in science and technology, and learn the language uses, structure andform. She also hypothesized that since the ESP instructional materials adaptapproach different from the traditional grammatical approach, the studentsmay encounter difficulty in using them without the teacher‘s guidance. Calica (2003) found out that students are weak in the construction ofsentences using phrases and clauses as modifiers; using connectives andtransition expressions; and using the verb tense forms. She also discoveredthat paramedic practicum in particular failed to learn well the use of clausesand phrases as modifiers in the sentence; correct use of adjectives, connectives;and construction of imperative sentences and prohibitions. The researchersuggested that language teachers integrate need analysis into the lesson plan inorder to draw up a profile of communication needs and to validate specificallythe skills and linguistic forms to be taught. She further commented thattextbook writers and designers of instructional materials should identify theneeds of the specific group of learners and the educational and curriculumsetting into which the teaching of English must fit. She suggested too thatcourse designers should make course decisions based on the interpretation oflanguage needs analysis in order to conceptualize and organize the content ofevery language program in an institution. School administrators should make 51
    • information about the learners‘ current state, and preferences and their desiredgoal to identify the present language situation in view of the future languageneeds. Finally, she reported that students themselves should be made to reflecton their learning, to identify their needs and to gain more sense of ownershipand control of their learning through dialogue between them and the teachersand among themselves. Villalva (2004) in his study of integration of content and languageactivities to fourth year high school students, he utilized Hutchinson‘s & Water‘s Materials Design Model in analyzing the existing needs and difficulties of theEnglish teachers on having an integrated lesson based on the interviewsconducted and observation of classes. Valerio, Mañgahas & Milan (2004) reported on their study that thestudents had little difficulty in answering the items about readingcomprehension and vocabulary in a science-based reading text. In other wordsstudents can understand a reading test using science as content material. Intheir content-based language test for high school English, the researchersfurther discovered that the students experienced difficulty in answering theproofreading test and cloze test because these tests are seldom given to them.They plainly suggested that in giving cloze test, there should be no deletions onthe first few sentences of the first paragraph in order to prepare the student forlanguage and reading proficiency. Lastly, the letter of the deleted word shouldbe given so that the student can have an idea on what it‘s all about. 52
    • Ramos (2004) offered that in preparing instructional materials inteaching English to a certain group of students, the teacher must take intoconsideration the following variables: nature, needs, problems and courseconcentration of the students. This study is of great help to ministerialstudents in preparing them for the vocation—e.g. preaching, leading, arguing,counseling, teaching, explaining, among others. He used the activities inEnglish which are for ministerial students—ministerial-based. The contents(e.g. grammar exercises, vocabulary and reading comprehension) of the materialare mostly taken from the Holy Bible. Cunanan (2004) in his Content-Based Prototype Lesson Plans for FourthYear High School Students used varied authentic text type from the contentareas in teaching English. The selection and design of the lesson plan wasbased on the observations of English classes, interview of teachers,interpretation of answers to the questionnaires given to teachers regarding theirclassroom practices especially in the use of content-based materials in Englishlanguage teaching, and the analysis of the PSSLC (Philippine SecondarySchools Learning Competencies) which was the basis for the objectives. Hesupports the experts‘ viewpoint that the use of integrated approach to Englishlanguage teaching provides for the development of listening, speaking, reading,writing, and grammar skills. ESL teachers according to him should be well-oriented to the field of their target users. They also need to collaborate withcontent area teachers for better planning of their teaching. Similar to Cortez 53
    • (2002), the researcher also authentic materials ranging from recipes, medicinelabels, brochures, processes, diary entries, journals, biographies,documentaries, news reports, etc.; all of which were taken from the contentareas and purposely for a more extensive type of listening, speaking, readingand writing skills typically required in content disciplines. To date, the most recent study which have been conducted by PNU ESLresearchers—Content-Based Supplementary Vocabulary Instructional Materialsfor Freshmen Business Students (Bernardo, 2005) presents a collaborative workbetween the researcher and the mathematics professors. He designed his PeerValidation Questionnaire as to the evaluation of his instructional materials.Part Two: On the Teaching and Testing of Grammar This part reviews the different operational and conceptual definitions ofgrammar given by various experts in language teaching. The researcher alsotries to present various literatures on the linguistic foundations of grammar, itsnature and types. This section also discusses issues and problems in theteaching and testing of grammar, like—Should we teach grammar in school?;What should include in the study of English grammar in college?; What type ofgrammar should be taught in college?; What method or approach best fits in theteaching of grammar?; How should grammar test look like? These, and a lotmore shall be the major concern in the discussion. Aside from the localunpublished studies about developing instructional materials on grammar, theresearcher also cited the works of Larsen-Freeman--Celce-Murcia (1998), RobBatstone (1996) for the pedagogical approaches, and John Heaton (1998) and 54
    • Arthur Hughes (1996) for testing procedures and techniques. The researcheralso surveyed six different locally authored textbooks used in the teaching ofgrammar in college—particularly to freshmen students. Furthermore, the review posits three essential points of analysis: thecontent, the approach used, and the inputs.A. On the definitions, nature, and theoretical foundations of grammar Language experts define grammar in several different ways. To sum,grammar is the study of language which deals with the forms and structure ofwords and with their customary arrangement in phrases and sentences or thesystem of rules in speaking and writing a given language. The Oxford American Dictionary in Ayoob (2006) defines grammar as:―the study of words and the rule for their formation and their relationships toeach other in sentences; the rules themselves; speech or writing judged as goodor bad according to these rules‖ Why grammar? There is distinctly familiar about grammar. Linguistshave been studying it for centuries, and it remains an object of learning forcountless schoolchildren across the globe; To quote, Batstone (1994): ―It is anintegral part of the language we use in everyday communication. Although weare probably not conscious of grammar in our own language use, as languageteachers, we can hardly fail to be aware of its influence. Grammar is a majorinfluence in syllabus design, the focal point of many classroom exercises, and thekey behind that familiar student query: Please, what is the rule here?‖‖ 55
    • Moreover, Batstone (1994) claimed that language without grammar wouldcertainly leave us seriously handicapped. He clarified that language is notrandom, but orderly. He explained that grammar is not a single, homogenous‗object‘ but immensely broad and diverse phenomenon. He even identified whathe called perspectives on grammar, which he believed important for languageteaching; hence grammar as a product and a process. According to him, aproduct perspective on grammar probably the most familiar to the majority ofteachers. The emphasis is on the component parts of the language system,divided up into separate forms. Each form is the product of the grammarian‘sanalysis, and this product perspective on grammar can be of great value toteachers and learners. By focusing on particular grammatical forms and theirassociated meanings, teachers can help learners to develop their knowledge ofthe grammatical system, and the meanings, which it helps to signal. On the other hand, Batstone argued that this process is only one side ofthe coin, because grammar is also a key element in the process of language use.Grammar as process, is likewise thinking of the myriad ways in which it isdeployed from moment to moment in communication. Sysoyev in the Internet TESL Journal addresses the issue of L2 grammarteaching to ESL students with focus on form and meaning. A method ofintegrative grammar teaching, consisting of three major stages (a) exploration, 56
    • (b) explanation, and (c) expression (EEE), is proposed. To illustrate how each ofthese stages function, several experimental lessons were conducted. The paperdescribes and discusses the lessons themselves, their rationale, and theirimplementation of the proposed method. An evaluative questionnaireconducted after experimental lessons, shows that students preferred to learn L2grammar using the EEE method, as opposed to form-based or meaning basedonly approaches. As a possible solution, integrative grammar teaching combines form-based with a meaning-based focus. Spada and Lightbrown (1993) have alsoargued ―that form focused instruction and corrective feedback provided withinthe context of communicative interaction can contribute positively to secondlanguage development in both the short and long term‖. Thus, integration ofform and meaning is becoming increasingly important in current research.Celce-Murcia, Dornyei and Thurell (1997) call it ―a turning point‖ incommunicative language teaching, in which ‗explicit, direct elements aregaining significance in teaching communicative abilities and skills‖.Kumaravadivelu call s this ―a principled communicative approach‖ (cited byCelce-Murcia, Dornyei and Thurell, 1997). Of course, depending on theirstudents with different needs in the same group, or having various needs in theclassroom. Musumeci (1997) mentions the idea of connecting form andmeaning in grammar teaching as a developoing trend in reference to theproficiency oriented curriculum. She points out that students should be able tolearn explicit grammar rules as well as have a chance to practice them incommunication in the authentic or simulation tasks. Interestingly, Musumeci 57
    • advocates giving students a chance to look at the language on a sentence levelto see how certain grammatical rules are applied. According to Appel, and Lantolf (1994) and Lantolf and Pavlenko (1995),the role of the mediator in teaching an L2 is placed heavily on an L2 teacher,whose task is to direct students in the right direction. What principle then supports the acquisition of grammar? According toresearch, children by the age of five or six are usually fluent in their language.They use it confidently without knowing the names of the parts and structuresthey speak. They are users of Hartwell‘s Grammar 1. By the time childrenreach school age, they are competent in the use of all five basic sentencepatterns (Hunts 1995 in Patterson 2006). They are able to use negatives,passives, ellipses, and imperatives, (Gillet & Temple 1984 in Patterson 2006)and they can use present, past, and future tenses (Loban 1976 in Patterson2006). These grammatical concepts are first learned through oral speech,through the immersion process that allows children to develop language. Butone of the traditional elements of a language arts program is isolated grammarinstruction. English teachers have traditionally placed great faith in the directbenefits of separate grammar instruction. Specifically, they often teachgrammar in isolation from writing. The skills approach to literacy has itsfoundation in behaviorist theory, which assumes that literacy is acquired 58
    • through direct separate skills instruction. These skills would then becomeintegrated through practice. Atwell 1987, Meyer 1990 in Patterson 2006 reported that some teacher-researchers found that grammar instruction can be far more effective if it isincorporated into student-writing instruction. Martha Kolln in Patterson 2006 stressed that students need to beconsciously aware of their own grammatical knowledge and that this can bedone through studying structures and labeling them. Meckel, on the otherhand, concluded that not enough time had been devoted to teaching grammar.Meckel pointed out that the formal study of grammar does not have to beisolated from student writing. (Weaver 1996). Kolln, however, points out thatflaws in the studies that advocate the de-emphasis of Prescriptive Grammarinstruction indicate that grammar should be taught. Her contention thatgrammar as application is interesting, but her belief that this is ―proved‖through pointing out flaws in previous studies is contestable. Rei Noguchi in Patterson is another newer voice that is asking teachersto think critically about the role of grammar in the classroom. His bookGrammar and the Teaching of Writing (1991) suggests that teachers limit theuse of grammatical terminology to those elements or features that are necessaryin helping students create fewer errors in their writing and to write moreeffective sentences. Noguchi is one of the newer voices who believes students 59
    • must formulate their own operational descriptions of how language functions.This is a move away from the cult of correctness and recognition that studentsalready have a vast knowledge of Grammar 1, even though they may not be ableto articulate it. Noguchi is attempting to lead teachers toward more DescriptiveGrammars that recognize the linguistic abilities of students. Noguchi, however,acknowledges that power structures within the culture demand a level of―correctness‖ in writers and suggests that teachers focus on the most common―errors‖ in student writing and those ―errors that seem to most concern thosewho wield power in corporate, academic, and political arenas. According to Weaver, these are essentially errors in subject/verbagreement, and the failure to recognize subordinate clauses and phrases asincomplete sentences. Weaver also adds the misuses of commas in certainsituations, such as introductory phrases and the lack of commas with the useof appositives and interrupters. Patterson quoted both Susan Hunter and Ray Wallace for teachers torethink the role of grammar in the English classroom. They admit that toogreat a focus on School or Traditional Grammars is not the answer, but theyadd that this is not the only approach to grammar. Wallace believes the issuehas been skirted for too long, especially among college composition teachers,and that these teachers need to find ways in which to reconnect grammar andwriting. What should teachers know? Patterson suggests that in order tounderstand the complexity of the grammar issue, teachers need to have some 60
    • understanding of the language acquisition process. And they need tounderstand that children enter the classroom with thorough grounding in theinternalized system of rules of their language. They already know Grammar 1.Teachers should also understand that, barring some cognitive impairment;native speakers use ―good‖ grammar, even though the language they speak maynot be ―standard‖ English. They should also understand the problems inthinking of grammars as a remedy for supposed inadequacies in studentswriting and spoken language. Bell Hooks (1994) in Patterson 2006 eloquently points out a fewproblems with the notion of teaching grammar. In essence she asks ―whosegrammar are we teaching?‖ If the goal of grammar teaching (whether within thecontext of writing or not) is to help students speak and write the language ofpower, we must ask ourselves if this is a noble goal. And by assuming thatthere IS a language of power, and that those who master it have a better chanceof being ―successful‖, what are we saying about those who do not, or will not,speak that language? It is but interesting to note in this paper the role of functional grammar,in which this study used. Functional grammar is the name given to any of arange of functionally-based approaches to the scientific study of language, suchas the grammar model developed by Simon Dik or Michael Halliday‘s Systemicfunctional grammar; another important figure in recent linguistic functionalismis Talmy Givon. 61
    • According to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, in the functional paradigma language is in the first place conceptualized as an instrument of socialinteraction among human beings, used with the intention of establishingcommunicative relationships. Within this paradigm one attempt to reveal theinstrumentality of language with respect to what people do and achieve with itin a social interaction. A natural language, in other words, is seen as anintegrated part of the communicative competence of the natural language user. Because of its emphasis on usage, communicative function, and thesocial context of language, functional grammar differs significantly from otherlinguistic theories, which stress purely formal approaches to grammar, forinstance Chomskyan generative grammar. In the ―The Grammar Book (Second Edition)‖, Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman (1999) identified two approaches to teaching language. One is focusedprimarily on language use, while the other is on language forms or analysis.They clearly discussed what most language experts have been arguing over theyears now. However, they reported that the controversy did not entirely find aconcrete resolution. For, according to them, there is evidence to support bothpoints of view. They further explained that it is no uncommon to find learnerswho, for whatever reason, find themselves in a new country or a new region oftheir own country, who need to learn a new language, and who do so withoutthe benefit of formal instruction. They claimed also that learner‘s languagedevelopment may become arrested in an immersion environment, once theircommunicative needs have been met. 62
    • They further argued that if the approach focuses on language analysis,the connection should be easy to make. The more teachers know aboutgrammar, the more expeditiously they should be able to raise a learner‘sconsciousness about how the language works. They should be able to focuslearner‘s attention on the distinctive features of a particular grammatical formin less time than it would take for the learner to notice them on his or her own.They advised teachers to teach grammar explicitly by giving students rules andexercises with the appropriate grammatical terminology. On the other hand,they can also teach grammar implicitly as well, like asking students to engagein particular tasks that require the use of certain structures. In addition, ateacher might highlight properties of the grammatical structures by providingnegative evidence—that is, helping students to see what is not possible inEnglish. In this way, learners are encouraged to notice the gap between whatthey are producing and what the target language requires. Teachers might alsoexpose students to language samples in which particular grammaticalstructures are highlighted or are more prevalent than they might be in ordinarycommunication. They strongly recommend that ESL/EFL teachers must teach grammarpedagogically, not linguistically, for linguistic grammars strive only for internalconsistency; are often inaccessible except to those specially trained to workwithin a particular paradigm, while pedagogical grammars are eclectic innature. They further stressed out that grammar can be implicitly taught tolanguage students; hence the familiarization to metalanguage and grammaticaldescriptions. What ESL/EFL teachers should be helping students to is be able 63
    • to use the structures of English accurately, meaningfully, and appropriately.Thus, ESL/EFL teachers might better think of what they do as teaching―grammaring‖—a skill—rather that teaching grammar as an area of knowledge.(Larsen-Freeman 1991). Jeremy Harmer (1987) in Villamin, Salazar, Bala & Suñga (1998)presents a number of techniques for teaching grammar: First, he differentiates covert grammar teaching from overt grammarteaching. Covert grammar teaching takes place when grammatical facts are hiddenfrom the students—even though they are learning the language. The studentsmay be asked to do an information gap activity or read text where new grammaris practiced or introduced, but their attention will be drawn to the activity or tothe text and not to the grammar. The teachers help the students to acquireand/or practice the language, but they do not draw conscious attention to anyof the grammatical facts of the language. Overt grammar teaching means that the teacher actually provides thestudents with grammatical rules and explanations—information is openlypresented , in other words. For example, the teacher explains how presentsimple questions need do or does. Other examples are problem-solving anddiscovery exercises that encourage the students to consider grammaticalinformation in some detail. 64
    • In overt grammar teaching, the teachers are explicit and open about thegrammar of the language, but with covert teaching, the teachers get thestudents to work with the new language and hope that they will more or lesssubconsciously absorb grammatical information, which will enable them toacquire the language as a whole. Harmer also states that, grammar teaching of both the overt and covertkind has a real and important place in the classroom. At the beginning level,the teachers are expected to do quite a lot of structure (and function) teachingand less really free communicative activity—although emphasis is placed onreading and listening. The teaching of grammar would be fairly covert since themain aim is to get the students to practice and use the language as much aspossible. As the students learn more the balance would change, and atintermediate levels the students would be involved in more communicativeactivities and would have less grammar teaching. As students get moreadvances, they can actively study grammar in more overt ways. Harmer suggests the following presentation techniques: using charts;dialogs; a mini situation; text for contrast; texts for grammar explanation;visuals for a situation; modeling; isolation; visual demonstration; writing; timelines; fingers; and explanation. Marianne Celce-Murcia (1988), an American language specialist, statesthe following steps in teaching grammar: 65
    • The first step is the preparation for grammar lesson. In preparing agrammar lesson, the teacher must consult a variety of grammar reference booksand English as a second language (ESL) texts in order to establish how astructure is formed, when it is used, and whether there are any particular rulesor exceptions governing its use. The second step is, the grammar lesson which consists of four parts: Presentation. In here, grammar structure is introduced, either inductively or deductively. Selection should be made according to teacher strengths, student preferences and the nature of the structure. Focuses practice. In this step, the student manipulates the structure in question while all other variables are held constant. The purpose is to allow the student to gain control of the form without the added pressure and distraction of trying to use the form for communication. The teacher should not proceed to the next stage until most students have mastered at least the form of the structure. Communication practice. Here, the student engages in communicative activities to practice the structure being learned. Teacher feedback and correction. Although this is usually considered a final step, it must take place throughout the lesson. A teacher‘s correction 66
    • strategy should probably change according to the phase of the lesson. For example, during the second part of the lesson. Correction should be predominantly straightforward and immediate. During the third part, communication should not be interrupted. Instead, the teacher should take note of errors and deal with them after the communicative exercises. There is one element of correction that should remain constant: regard when correction is made, the teachers‘ feedback should always attempt to engage the student cognitively rather than to simply point out the error and provide the appropriate target form. Mario Rinvolucri (1984) in Villamin, Salazar, Bala & Suñga (1998)suggests five types of activities in teaching grammar: competitive games;collaborative sentence-making games; awareness activities; grammar throughdrama; and miscellany. Competitive games are traditional games modified to allow the students towork in small groups and show themselves and the teacher how much or howlittle grammar they know. Collaborative sentence-making games are exercises in which the studentsbuild sentences and paragraphs in cooperation with each other rather than incompetition. The teachers‘ role is to give silent feedback to individual studentsand to the class but only when absolutely necessary. Awareness activities help the teacher move right away from cognitive workor grammar. The students are asked to write and say things about themselves 67
    • and people who are significant to them within a set of structures prescribed bythe teacher. The student focus on what they are saying not on the form theyare using. They control the content, while the teacher controls the structure. Grammar through drama will have the students off their chairs practicinggrammar through movement, shouting, and writing on each other‘s back. Miscellany consists of a ragbag of useful grammar-practicing activities. Aside from the five types of activities presented by Rinvolucri, (in Villamin, et.al. 1998), there are many other ways of teaching grammar. These include the following: Humanistic techniques. Gertrude Moskowitz (1978) introduced humanistictechniques in language teaching. She presented exercises with two purposes:linguistic and affective. The first purpose gives practice for grammar problem,while the second purpose is intended to establish a warm, supportive,nonthreatening climate in the classroom. Using proverbs. Proverbs can be used in teaching grammar, since eachproverb has a grammar focus. Communicative grammar teaching. Language teaching today is premised ona theory which views learning as enjoyable and spontaneous; which learnersmove in a stress-free environment; where they function as thinking, sensible,and responsible individuals, where the teacher plays the role of abackgrounder, facilitator, and guide; and where language is used, as a whole, incontext that provides a meaningful and interesting language practice. 68
    • Foreign and Local Studies/Researches on Grammar The researcher has also tried to review several professional books, as wellas local textbooks used in the teaching and testing of grammar in school, mostespecially in college. Among of which include the work of the noted Halliday in1985. His book, ―An Introduction to Functional Grammar‖ is a very clear andeloquent outline of the nature of grammar as a communicative system,including its origin and its potential. Rutherford‘s (1987) ―Second Language Grammar: Learning and Teaching‖is an important and tightly argued book. Rutherford believes strongly thatgrammar is intricately connected with discourse—of its nature, in learning, andin language use. This book covers all these areas, and considers application ofthis view of grammar for language teaching. In 1988, Rutherford worked with Smith in their ―Grammar and SecondLanguage Teaching.‖ The book contains a very useful selection of papers,including some important discussion of consciousness-raising and its relevanceto the teaching of grammar. Widdowson in 1990, released his book, ―Aspects of Language Teaching‖through the Oxford University Press. This is a concisely argued series ofessays, which covers and extends a number of the key areas discussed in thisbook, both in terms of theory and of practice. Particularly noteworthy is thepaper ‗Grammar, nonsense, and learning‘. 69
    • In 2002, McGrawHill, published the book of Milada Broukal‘s ―GrammarForm and Function 3.‖ Her skill book feature flexible approach to grammarinstruction for she integrates study of new structures (form) with information onhow to use them and what they mean (function). The book also ensuresaccurate production and fluent use of grammar. It has a review section thatoffers consolidated practice of key structures, and at the same time guidestudents to use grammar in meaningful conversations. Aside from writingassignments, which allows students build their composition skills like narratingand describing. Students, and teacher alike would surely love her skill book forit offers multiple assessment tools for them to use. The book, by the way isaccompanied by website activities which would develop a real-world listeningand reading skills. Another book that is noteworthy for ESL teachers is the ―Grammar forEnglish Language Teachers‖. This book by Cambridge University Press alsocomes with a chapter-to-chapter extension exercise, which has been madeavailable at http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/elt. The author encourages teachers toappreciate the range of factors, which affect grammatical choices, but alsointroduces the rules of thumb presented to learners in course materials.Consolidated exercises provide an opportunity for teachers to test the rulesagainst real language use and to evaluate classroom and reference materials.The book is organized thematically, but also provides a short cut index at thebeginning for ease of reference. The author specifically designed this book for,first, to prospective and practicing teachers studying language as part of adegree in English or on courses such as those leading to teaching certification 70
    • and diplomas. Second, for teachers who want to continue learning andexploring the grammar of English on their own, and, lastly, for teachers who doand teachers who do not speak English as a first language. ―The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher‘s Course‖ by Marianne Celce-Murcia & Diana Larsen-Freeman, with Howard Williams (1999). The secondedition of this book comes in two volumes, which was designed specifically tohelp prospective and practicing teachers of English as a Second or ForeignLanguage enhance their understanding of English grammar, expand their skillsin linguistic analysis, and develop a pedagogical approach to teaching Englishgrammar. Each chapter of the grammar book is designed to lead readerssystematically from an understanding of the grammar structure to an ability touse this understanding in the ESL/EFL classroom. After the first twointroductory chapters, each chapter includes: a core presentation of oneparticular grammatical structure. Descriptions and examples draw upon thelatest linguistic research and include discussion of problems that ESL/EFLstudents regularly encounter. It also offers suggestions for teaching variousaspects of each grammar structure to ESL/EFL students. Moreover, the bookcontains comprehension and application exercises that enable readers to assesstheir understanding of the material and practice their ability to apply what wasbeen presented. The researcher also reviewed several studies of researchers of thePhilippine Normal University on the teaching of grammar. Some of which are 71
    • instructional materials intended to multilevel. In here, the researcher carefullyselected three related works of Macatangay (2001), Jalandoni (2004) and,Maligalig (2005). Macatangay‘s study, ―The English Plus Students of Dela Salle-Lipa: TheirExpectations, Language Weaknesses and Preferred Grammar TeachingTechniques‖ he reported that respondents expected their grammar teachers tosolve complex structures governing grammatical rules and they should be givenimmediate feedback after every communication activity. He also found thatstudents admitted their weaknesses in the following areas of English languageranked accordingly: grammar, vocabulary, and idioms. He suggested of adesign of action plan, which would cover the English Department‘s long-termgoal in grammar teaching. The action plan would stress the importance ofgiving pretest and posttest to students, preparing of syllabus and offeringrecommendation for freshmen‘s loading and scheduling of subjects. Likewise, Jalandoni (2004) found similar findings with Macatangay. Sherelated that college technical students need to learn the correct grammaticalstructures: subject-verb agreement, verb tense and verb forms, transitionaldevices, and prepositions. Her prototype instructional materials consisted ofsixteen lessons on the eight parts of speech. The exercises covered differentphases in language development especially in grammar have been sequencedaccording to difficulty and appropriateness. Varied, short, and interestingexercises have been made for reinforcement to the slow learners and fastlearners. Each lesson was defined first, discussed and followed by language 72
    • analysis. Evaluation and exercises were also provided to the learners tostimulate the actual situation where freshmen and technical college studentscan relate. The recent study of Maligalig (2005), is a suggested material in teachinggrammar to freshman college students. She had designed thirty activities inthe form of dialogs, games, error analysis and writing activity. The materialswere communicative in nature. She shared the same report with otherresearchers about the difficulties of college students in understanding verbsspecifically types and forms. She further reported that they were unable to usecorrect tense and had difficulty in recognizing verbs in the sentences. Of the different Philippine textbooks intended for the use of collegefreshmen, the researcher discovered that none of these could effectively servethe purpose of a functional way of learning grammar. It was found outtherefore that the common approach used in these textbooks was but linguistic,and not pedagogical—as what Larsen-Freeman & Celce-Murcia (1999) stronglyadvocate. Some even used parsing method in analyzing the sentence structure;a grammar book heavily packed with lessons in poetry, novel, and art ofargumentation. Other authors would likely to camouflage under a descriptionof ―handbook‘‖, ―student‘s manual‖, and the like, yet, discussing all about therhetorics of writing, and worse is, pronunciation. In most cases, contents are ingeneric. The only worktext that the researcher found similar to content-basedwas the one exclusively used by one known university in Manila. Thoughclaimed to be as communicative, most of the exercises were but focused onknowing the terminologies, (i.e. identifying whether the verb is present, past of 73
    • future tense; writing whether the nouns are abstract, common or proper, andcountless exercises that requires learners labeling the sentence parts instead ofdeveloping the skill of writing correct ones.) 74
    • CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This chapter presents the methodology of the study. The researcherused descriptive method. Specifically, this study is descriptive-evaluative innature, since the design intends to appraise carefully the worthiness of CBI.(Calmorin & Calmorin, 1995) This study tries to present a prototype lesson in the teaching ofgrammar to college through various content-based exercises exclusivelyintended for teacher education students only. The material is not a module,but typically a compilation of teacher-made exercises on grammar. This was sobecause the researcher did not intend to give neither a pretest nor a posttest.Since the needs analyses have already been identified beforehand, then, it isadministering a pretest has no use after all, just the way modules were meantto. Instead, a summative evaluation through summative exam had beendesigned specifically for such a purpose. Initially, the researcher underwent in the following procedures. First,related literatures were gathered and the prepared the bibliographical sketch.Second, the articles were encoded, reviewed and surveyed. Lastly, grammarexercises have been prepared utilizing various professional literatures inteacher education. (Refer to Appendix A for the schematic diagram). The scopeof the grammar exercises was based on the result research of Patterson (2006),Larsen-Freeman & Celce-Murcia (1994). Researchers Macatangay (2001),Jalandoni (2004) and, Maligalig (2005) studies generally support the latter‘s 75
    • findings about ESL learner‘s weaknesses in grammar. The top ten mostfrequently committed errors include—the subject-verb agreement; verb tense-aspect system; conjunctions; prepositions; articles; nouns; word forms andfunctions; phrases and clauses; wh-questions; and yes-no questions formulation.Consequently, the researcher hypothesized this as a widespread, and is acommon picture of the need for improvement. Henceforth, the result of theirresearch had been considered as the basis for the needs analysis, instead ofgiving a diagnostic test, a pretest nor a posttest. In other words, this study isplainly a try out of an ESL instructor on integrating content to grammarteaching. The exercises were categorized into three varying degrees of difficulty,that is, easy, average, and difficult. The design of the exercises was patternedafter Heaton‘s (1995). Several of his models on item types like, multiple choice,completion items, and error-recognition, were utilized, and that is to ensurefunctionality of the purpose. 76
    • CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF MATERIALS This chapter presents the materials which consist of ten of the tentopmost identified areas of improvement as far as grammar usage is concern toalmost all college students as reflected in numerous studies conducted bothlocally and internationally. All these grammar points were highlighted on eachunit. To ensure familiarity of a grammar lesson, the material briefly describesthe form (meaning) and function (usage) of a particular language structure. Theconcepts were all taken from the ―The Grammar Book‖ of Larsen-Freeman &Celce-Murcia (1999). The material, being presented subsentencially andsentencially, comes in ten different grammar exercises in three varying levels ofdifficulty. Again, on the exercises design, the researcher utilized J.B. Heaton‘smodels-- multiple item type; sentence completion, alternative response type, anderror identification. Finally, to gauge learner‘s mastery of the languagestructures, the researcher also prepared a 100-item summative test on the tengrammar structures. All grammar exercises are supported with a table ofspecifications; table of descriptions; as well as separate keys to correction foundin the appendices. 77
    • CHAPTER VSummary, Conclusions and Recommendations This chapter presents the summary, the conclusions andrecommendations. This chapter also summarizes researches made by differentexperts in the discipline and how these researches influence a majority of ESLclassroom teachers. This also answers questions raised in the statement of theproblem. Moreover, this part also reflects the researcher‘s insights on howcould this study are far improved, thus contribute to a more relevant andfunctional language teaching and learning of grammar to tertiary level mostspecifically to the teacher education students.SUMMARY It‘s but no doubt that numerous researchers all agree of the significantrole of using integrated approach in language teaching, testing, and learning.Various literatures reveal that at present, researchers keep on discoveringefficient ways to maximize language learning through integration, hence,Content-Based Instruction (or the CBI) is one of those approaches. However,experts agree then that the approach is no longer new to most languageteachers. As a matter of fact, prior to CBI, teachers may not be aware that theyare actually using it on their respective ESL classes. That CBI is just simply amatter of integrating a particular content with language. This can be seen in 78
    • the teacher-made classroom activities, either in reading, writing, speaking, orgrammar. It must be noted then that while CBI is unknown to clueless ESLteachers, experts may have somehow identified them using the popularizedapproaches in ELT, like Whole Language Approach (WLA), Thematic Approach,Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA), English forAcademic Purposes (EAP) and its adjuncts—(e.g. English for Science andTechnology; English for Business Education, etc.), English for Specific Purposes(ESP) and its adjuncts also, like—English for Medicine/Paramedics; English forEngineering; English for Vocational Purposes, etc.), Computer-Based LanguageLearning and Teaching (CoBaLLT), and Content-Based Language LearningInstructions (CBLLI) to name a few. In the Philippines, in particular, researchers make use of the CBIapproach primarily in the teaching and testing of the parts of speech, andwriting to college learners. Similarly, there are a number of studies that alsoexplores the possibility of using authentic materials in developing readingcomprehension skills of students across levels most specifically to elementaryand high school. Though the approaches come in different labels, experts claim that allthese promise effectiveness in teaching ESL as far as integrative approach isconcern. 79
    • CONCLUSIONS The conclusion of this study is anchored on the findings. Preparation ofcontent-based instructional materials such as this (grammar exercises utilizingteacher education reading materials) entails so much time and skill sincegrammatical inputs are too limited. That not all teacher education-readingmaterials (textbooks, in particular) contain a wide range of grammatical inputsspecifically perfect tenses, aspects, and preposition of movement, among others.While the intended grammatical structures were not treated comprehensively,this may affect student‘s proficiency in answering the test items since commonstructures have been overly used throughout the items.RECOMMENDATIONS For further development of the design, the researcher wishes torecommend that prospective researchers must take extra effort in gathering ofgrammatical inputs should s/he intend to come up with a more comprehensivesample of grammar exercises. Teachers should pilot the exercises to the teachereducation students to determine the effectiveness of the instructional material.ESL instructors are encouraged to allow students experience similar procedureof doing the instructional material as part of the course requirement in theprogram (e.g. Preparation of Instructional Materials). Peer critiquing of thesample exercises is also considered very essential. Samples must be viewedand evaluated by both the language and content instructors to determine thelimitations and/or comprehensibility of the instructional material. 80
    • Development of rubrics for evaluation is objectively recommended. LET writersare also encouraged to adapt the approach in presenting sample test ingrammar and/or reading comprehension instead of using generic approach. 81
    • 82