CBI Part I: Theory


Published on

CBI: Connect Build Integrate. Part I of the 2 part workshop presented to TICE faculty on March 10, 2011. This part covers the theory behind using content-based instruction in our program.

Published in: Education
1 Comment
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

CBI Part I: Theory

  1. 1. Topic of Today’s Brown Bag<br />
  2. 2. CBIContent-Based Instruction<br />CBIConnect Build Integrate<br />Elisabeth L. Chan<br />Part I: Theory<br />A TICE Brown Bag – March 10, 2011<br />The International Center for English<br />Arkansas State University<br />
  3. 3. Kamel: a case study<br />350 on the TOEFL; Master's degree in Business Administration<br />Speaks fairly well, but writing skills are very weak; trouble expressing ideas grammatically<br />Must pass the college writing skills assessment test within 2 years<br />Kasper (2000)<br />
  4. 4. Content-Based Instruction for Us<br />English language instruction through the use of mainstream course content<br />LANGUAGE<br />CONTENT<br />SKILLS<br />
  5. 5. Coming Up<br />Expanded explanation of CBI <br />Theoretical background<br />SLA, Cognitive & Educational Psychology<br />How CBI differs from a traditional ESL class<br />Strengths and weaknesses<br />
  6. 6. being knowledgeable in the content areas, extracting the language and teaching points from the content, and integrating language skills within the CBI framework.<br />need for more theoretical background and an expanded explanation of CBI, a discussion of how the approach differs from a traditional ESL class, and a synopsis of its strengths and weaknesses as an instructional approach<br />
  7. 7. What is CBI?<br />“CBI uses authentic (i.e., material not originally produced for language teaching purposes) tasks and materials while emphasizing accommodation to language learners' needs through increased redundancy and exemplification and the use of advance organizers, frequent comprehension checks, and frequent, straightforward assignments and assessment procedures.”<br />Peter Master<br />
  8. 8. What is CBI?<br />Uses authentic tasks and materials <br />Emphasizes accommodation to language learners' needs <br />Increased redundancy and exemplification <br />Use of advanced/graphic organizers <br />Frequent comprehension checks <br />Frequent, straightforward assignments and assessment procedures<br />(Master, 2000)<br />
  9. 9. Why balance instruction of content and linguistic skills?<br />Language skills are most effectively developed when taught in the context of acquiring information <br />(Blakely, 1997; Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 1989; Kamhi-Stein, 1997; Larsen-Freeman, 1997; Master, chap. 5, this volume, May-Landy, 1998; Zuengler & Brinton, 1997).<br />
  10. 10. SLA Theoretical Foundations for CBI<br />Comprehensible Input<br />CBI provides context with meaningful, comprehensible input; acquire language and knowledge<br />Comprehensible Output Hypothesis<br />Explicit focus on productive skills and on relevant and contextually appropriate language forms <br />BICS / CALP<br />CALP needs task-based, experiential learning from complex interdisciplinary content<br />(Kasper, 2000; Stoller & Grabe, 1997)<br />
  11. 11. Conversational vs Academic<br />Cummins<br />BICS – basic interpersonalcommunicative skills <br />2-3 years<br />CALP – cognitive academiclanguage proficiency <br />5-7 years<br />Cummins’ Quadrants<br />Context embedded? <br />Cognitively demanding?<br />
  13. 13. Vygotskian Theories<br />Private Speech<br />CBI provides the chance to sort input and practice rehearsing strategies<br />Student appropriation of learning tasks<br />Learn from teachers and peers, appropriating strategies and content in ongoing learning cycles<br />Negotiation in the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)<br />CBI provides the opportunity to negotiate the knowledge AND extend it at increasing levels of difficulty<br />
  14. 14. Scaffolding<br />Bruner (1976) + Vygotsky (1960/1978) zone of proximal development<br />“more knowledgeable other”<br />Recruit learner interest<br />Simplify the task<br />Highlight relevant features<br />Maintain motivation<br />Control learner frustration<br />Modeling<br />Contingent scaffolding, collective scaffolding, teacher-as-learner effect<br />http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_09/i_09_p/i_09_p_dev/i_09_p_dev.html<br />
  15. 15. Negotiation of Meaning<br />Dialogic learning<br />Miscommunications arise<br />Address and resolve/modify language<br />“more knowledgeable” + learner = create and negotiate meaning<br />Results in<br />Comprehensible input<br />Comprehensible output<br />Feedback in natural interactions<br />Greater awareness of language andfurther development of languageproficiencies<br />
  16. 16. Cognitive Learning Theory<br />Cognitive Stage<br />Rough mental representation<br />Associative Stage<br />Stronger representation, but relies on rules and needs outside support<br />Autonomous Stage<br />Automatic and autonomous<br />(Anderson, 1983, 1985)<br />
  17. 17. Schema // Cognitive Map<br /><ul><li>Instruction in the use of various learning styles
  18. 18. Scaffolding
  19. 19. Extensive practice
  20. 20. Extensive feedback</li></ul>?<br />
  21. 21. Graphic Organizer<br />SCHOOL<br />STUDY<br />ACADEMIC<br />HARD<br />
  22. 22. Fun Fact<br />http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/academic_1<br />
  23. 23. Fun Fact<br />http://astate.aquabrowser.com/?q=academic<br />
  24. 24. Further Educational & Cognitive Psychology Examples<br />Depth of Processing Research<br />Deeper informational processing results in better learning<br />More elaborated<br />Connections between ideas<br />Spaced retrieval<br />Discourse Comprehension Processing Research<br />Materials organized thematically are easier to remember<br />More connections of related information<br />Verbal and visual together increase memory and recall<br />
  25. 25. Instructional Approaches & CBI<br />Cooperative Learning (Slavin, 1995)<br />Huge gains with group work that has structured objectives, goals and rewards, individualized accountability, and equal opportunities for success for each group member<br />Metacognitive/Learning Strategy<br />When strategy awareness and development constitute a daily component of all learning activities, language learning increases<br />Extensive Reading (Elley, 1991; Krashen, 1993)<br />Using a wide range of topics over a long period of time, reading, writing, vocabulary, speaking, listening, and content knowledge all increase <br />
  26. 26. Kamel: a case study (cont.)<br />Content-based program:<br />achieve fluency and master the vocabulary of academic discourse<br />use English to acquire interdisciplinary information<br />analyze and associate new information with previously learned information<br />articulate knowledge through various modes of written expression<br />4 Skills-based program: <br />grammatical exercises to help him practice verb tenses or subject-verb agreement<br />read one- to two-page passages and answer comprehension questions <br />attend a language laboratory; listen to tapes and practice the sounds of English<br />Kasper (2000)<br />
  27. 27. 4-skills vs. Academic CBI <br />Gives each language learning activity meaning, as it reflects university courses, as opposed to isolated or artificial exercises<br />Teaches useful academic language embedded in relevant discourse contexts<br />Challenges students to use the content knowledge and expertise they already have<br />Can increase intrinsic motivation when it is stressed that the student is learning and that it is worth the effort<br />
  28. 28. Least comfortable with…<br />experienced teaching assistants <br />determining how and what to evaluate, <br />integrating the skills within the content-based framework<br />being knowledgeable in the content area<br />novice teaching assistants<br />balancing the content as a vehicle with the language and skills focus of the course<br />determining how and what to evaluate<br />working without traditional textbooks<br />
  29. 29. Strengths and Weaknesses<br />STRENGTHS<br />Authentic and relevant language learning activities<br />Makes connections between information<br />Builds new content information and language on what students already know<br />Integrates, so that language is learned through acquiring knowledge<br />WEAKNESSES<br />It can be challenging to balance the content with the language, especially focus on form<br />Takes time and resources for instructors to be trained in using CBI, to gain knowledge of the content, and believe in its efficacy<br />
  30. 30. Brinton, Snow, & Wesche (1989)<br />The very notion of converting to content-based teaching involves re-educating teachers to view their instructional domain and responsibilities quite differently than they might previously have. Unless adequately prepared for their new teaching duties, teachers will invariably have to fight the urge to rely on their traditional teaching techniques as well as on materials and lesson plans developed over the years for a different audience—many of which may be inconsistent with the goals of the content-based program. (pp. 74-75)<br />
  31. 31. Effectiveness of CBI<br />Impact of CBI on EFL Students’ Reading Performance (Tsai & Shang, 2010)<br />101 sophomores majoring in English in a Taiwanese university<br />100 mins/week, 14 weeks; used short stories<br />At end, students took a general reading comprehension test and an academic reading comprehension test<br />
  32. 32. Statistically Significant Difference<br />
  33. 33. Increasing CBI Effectiveness<br />Faculty must be trained in the method and must be confident in its pedagogical efficacy.<br />Teachers need to point out to students the advantages of teaching language through content, offering examples to demonstrate the effectiveness of this type of instruction.<br />Faculty should develop a degree of expertise in the subject area depending on the individual teaching situation.<br />
  34. 34. Most helpful components<br />weekly level meetings with their course supervisor<br />experience with the model<br />the sample lesson plans provided<br />the observation/feedback sessions with their supervisor<br /> (Brinton, 2000)<br />
  35. 35. Kasper, 2000<br />Effective intensive programs are like tightly knit chains—all course components are interconnected. As a result, there is strong reinforcement of learning as thematic concepts are considered from several different interdisciplinary perspectives.<br />
  36. 36. the self-contained content-based ESL course follows an EAP model and may be designed around any mainstream subject area(s), with the course focus being unidisciplinary or multidisciplinary. A unidisciplinary self-contained course presents a variety topics drawn from one focus discipline, such as psychology or biology, and so offers opportunities for sustained content area study.<br />
  37. 37. Conclusion<br />“For ESL students to succeed in the academic mainstream, they must be able to do more than identify a vocabulary item, hold a simple conversation, or find the main idea of a reading passage. They must be able to use the English language as a means for acquiring knowledge, in the process engaging in the active analysis, interpretation, critique, and synthesis of information presented in English.” (Kasper, 1996; Pally, 1997)<br />
  38. 38. Part II: Practice Preview<br />Finding balance with a CBI approach<br />Modeling CBI activities used in different levels of TICE<br />A note on assessment<br />
  39. 39. Q & A<br />
  40. 40. References<br />Anderson, J. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. <br />Anderson, J. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications (2nd ed.). New York: Freeman.<br />Blakely, R. (1997). The English Language Fellows Program: Using peer tutors to integrate language and content. In M.A. Snow & D.M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 274-289). New York: Longman.<br />Brinton, D.M. (2000) Out of the mouths of babes: Novice teacher insights into content-based instruction. In L.F. Kasper (Ed.) Content-based college ESL instruction (pp. 48-70). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.<br />
  41. 41. References (cont.)<br />Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-based second language instruction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.<br />Hancock, C. R. (1994). Alternative assessment and second language study: What and why? Center for Applied Linguistics Digests. Retrieved from: http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/hancoc01.html<br />Grabe, W. & Stoller, F.L. (1997) Content-based Instruction: Research Foundations. In S.B. Stryker & B.L. Leaver (Eds.), Content-Based Instruction in Foreign Language Education: Models and Methods. Washington, DC: Georgetown University.<br />Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (1997). Enhancing student performance through discipline-based summarization-strategy instruction. In M. A. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 248-262). New York: Longman.<br />
  42. 42. References (cont.)<br />Kasper, L.F. (2000). Content-based college ESL instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.<br />Kasper, L. F. (1996). Writing to read: Enhancing ESL students' reading proficiency through written response to text. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 23(1), 25-33.<br />Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Grammar and its teaching: Challenging the myths. Center for Applied Linguistics Digests. Retrieved from: http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/Larsen01.htm<br />May-Landy, L. (1998). Linking assessment to the content-based curriculum. Paper presented at the 32nd annual meeting of TESOL. Seattle, WA.<br />
  43. 43. References (cont.)<br />Pally, M. (1997). Critical thinking in ESL.: An argument for sustained content. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(3), 293-311.<br />Schleppegrell , M.J., Achugar, M., & Oteíza, T. (2004). The Grammar of History: Enhancing Content-Based Instruction through a Functional Focus on Language. TESOL Quarterly, 38(1), 67-93.<br />Snow, M.A. & Genesee, F. (1989) A Conceptual Framework for the Integration of Language and Content in Second/Foreign Language Instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 23(2), 201-217.<br />Tsai, Y. & Hui-Fang Shang. (2010). The Impact of Content-Based Language Instruction on EFL Students’ Reading Performance. Asian Social Science, 6(3), 77-85.<br />Zuengler, J., & Brinton, M. (1997). Linguistic form, pragmatic function: Relevant research from content-based instruction. In M. A. Snow & M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 263-273). New York: Longman Publishing Group.<br />