Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Do they want the same thing


Published on

My oral presentation for my Master's in English as a foreign language on how individual differences matter when learning

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

Do they want the same thing

  1. 1. “DO THEY WANT THE SAMETHING?”Learner Perspectives on Two Content-Based Course Designs in the Context of English as aForeign LanguageMichael C. Cheng, Chang Jui-Chuan, Chen Yi-Chen,& Liao Ying-shu
  2. 2. ABSTRACT This research presented two models of content- based courses, one content-driven and the other language-driven, with a questionnaire to elicit English majors’ opinions on the two course designs. The results showed that they preferred the language-driven course and that they aspired for more language-skills training. It is therefore argued that there are differences in student beliefs concerning their needs and expectations between the EFL and ESL settings.
  3. 3. THEORY  Content-based language teaching is seen as a curriculum design that can lead to positive gains in the learners of a second or foreign language.Content driven =========================Language drivenTotal Partial Sheltered Adjunct Theme based LanguageImmer Immer Courses model or sustained classes withsion sion CBI content used for language practiceMet, 1998-9 & Stoller 200  However, in EFL, CBI seems to be less efective
  4. 4. THEME-BASED MODEL theme-based courses are the most commonly used model in CBI. Theme-based courses “have explicit language aims which are usually more important than the content learning objectives (Duenas, 2004).Kavaliauskiene (2004). Lithuania. Concluding benefits: 1. Materials are organized thematically. 2. Information is better procesed. 3. Motivation and interest are linked. 4. Expertise on the topic is developed.
  5. 5. SHELTERED MODEL The overall purpose of [sheltered] courses is content learning rather than language learning, so this model constitutes one of the ‘strong’ paradigms within the general framework of CBI. (Duenas, 2004) Chapple (1998).Hong Kong.  Student responses were quite positive with regard to content knowledge and language proficiency gains.  Chapple and Curtis (2000) do acknowledge that the small-scale study does not provide any conclusive evidence for language learning.
  6. 6. CRITICISMS OF CBI The efficacy of sustained CBI is supported with (barring one or two exceptions) little other than anecdotal proof (Master, 2003) Cognitive imbalance. Content or language may be too difficult or too easy. Wesche and Skehan (2002):  Lack of teacher preparation, inadequate curricular definitions to integrate content and language objectives,  A mismatch between course demands and language proficiency leading to frustration and loss of motivation.  unrealistic expectations, inappropriate assessment methods.  Lack of administrative support, and the need for cross disciplinary cooperation.
  7. 7. CURRENT DEVELOPMENT OFENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATIONIN TAIWAN English is a foreign language in Taiwan. Students who reach the university level have had a depth of training and exposure to English. High school students are expected to develop a 7000-word vocabulary and be familiar with the full spectrum of grammatical patterns. However, these expectations for English proficiency are not always met. Average students have vocabularies of less than 2000 English words.
  8. 8. PROFILE OF THE ENGLISHDEPARTMENT UNDER RESEARCH The department targeted in this study was an English department at one of the top ranked national universities in Taiwan. Students can be characterized as having already reached the high-intermediate to advanced level upon entering the department. First-year and sophomore students are required to take 12 hours of language-training classes.
  9. 9. NEW CONTENT-BASED COURSEDESIGNS PROPOSED BY THEDEPARTMENT Content driven sheltered model:  The language training program would be subsumed into the content courses.  The classes areconducted completely in English.  Daily exposure to English in their lectures and readings.  Exposure to language used in a natural setting. In this model, courses would be similar to English departments in native English speaking countries where students are assumed to have adequate proficiency in English allowing them to focus directly on content mastery.
  10. 10. SECOND MODEL PROPOSED More in line with a language-driven theme-based or sustained content-based instruction model. Students would enroll in writing and oral training classes that focused on one of the three fields offered by the department: literature, linguistics, or TESOL. These classes would still be designed to enhance the writing and speaking skills of students, but all topics for writing or discussion would revolve around the class’s area of fields.
  11. 11. METHODOLOGY Students who were sophomores or above were targeted as the informants since they had completed or were close to completing both years of the courses. 96 English majors (35% of the target population) participated in this study. Surveys and questionnaires.  Generally, do you feel the need to increase or decrease the frequency of using English in class?  Do you feel that more Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing classes should be added or cut?  Has your proficiency been upgraded by taking language training classes?
  12. 12. RESULTS OF THE STUDY Students’ Attitudes toward the Current Program:  In general, the students in the department were satisfied with the current language training programs  34% of the students was dissatisfied with the classes. Students’ Attitudes toward the New Course Designs  They seem to be more positive about the alternative idea of keeping language-skills courses but integrating content topics of literature, linguistics, or TESOL into them (Design 2: theme-based model)
  13. 13.  When asked about adopting Design 1 (sheltered/content-driven) in each language class separately, students showed much stronger disagreement than when queried about this concept in general. Table 2 shows that more than 80% of the students were against the proposal in spite of what language-skills class was being considered. Attitudes of Students with Different Future Plans Overall, almost 59% of the students indicated that they intend to go on to graduate school, although not necessarily in a field related to their undergraduate major.
  14. 14. FINDINGS ANDDISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS first, students disliked the idea of adopting language-skills training classes based on a sheltered model that is strongly content-driven; second, the respondents actually felt that the number of language-skills training courses was insufficient and desired an increase in their number. Regarding the English majors’ attitude toward the two proposed designs, the researchers observed that the students disliked the content- driven design
  15. 15.  Over 70 percent of the students preferred language-skills courses that are not integrated in content based classes. Over 55 percent of the students preferred the second proposal which maintains separate language-skills courses while covering specialized topics or themes in literature, linguistics, and TESOL. Respondents demanded more language-skills training courses because they felt a need for more explicit instruction on skills and more opportunities to practice those skills.
  16. 16. AND THAT’S IT…