Some recommended references on content-based Instruction and L2 students' needs

Some recommended references on content-based Instruction and L2 students' needs

• Adamson, H.D. (1993). Academic competence--theory and classroom practice: Preparing ESL students for content courses. NY/London: Longman.
• Anstrom, Kris. (2003). Academic achievement for secondary language minority students:
  Standards, measures and promising practices. In Jameson, Judith H., Enriching content classes for secondary ESOL students: Study guide (to accompany video). McHenry, IL: Delta/CAL. 66-142.
• Ariza, Eileen N. W. (2006). Not for ESOL teachers: What every classroom teacher needs to know about the linguistically, culturally, and ethnically diverse student. Boston: Pearson.
• August, Diane & Hakuta, Kenji, (eds.). (1998). Educating language-minority children. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
• August, Diane & Shanahan, Timothy, (eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-
  language learners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Bailey, Nathalie. (2000). E pluribus unum: Health as content for a community of learners. In Pally, Marcia, (ed.), Sustained content teaching in academic ESL/EFL. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 179-199.
• Balderrama, Maria V. & Diaz-Rico, Lynne T. (2006). Teaching performance expectations. Boston: Pearson.
• Bearne, Eve, (ed.). (1999). Use of language across the secondary curriculum. London: Routledge.
• Bourke, James M. (2006). Designing a topic-based syllabus for young learners. ELT Journal 60 (3): 279-286.
• Brinton, Donna M. & Master, Peter, (eds.). (1997). New ways in content-based instruction. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
• Brown, H. Douglas. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching, 4th ed. White Plains, NY: Longman.
• Butler, Yuko G. (2005). Content-based instruction in EFL contexts: Considerations for effective implementation. JALT Journal 27 (2): 227-245.
• Carrasquillo, Angela L. & Rodríguez, Vivian. (1996). Language minority students in the mainstream classroom. Clevedon/Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
• Cary, Stephen. (2000). Working with second language learners: Answers to teachers’ top ten questions. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
• Chamot, Anna U. (2005). The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: An update. In Richard-Amato, Patricia A. & Snow, Marguerite A., (eds.), Academic success for English Language Learners. White Plains, NY: Pearson/Longman. 87-100.
• Chamot, Anna U. & O’Malley, J. Michael. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Clair, Nancy. (2001).Why reading is hard: Viewers guide. McHenry, Ill: Delta (CAL). (Accompanies “Why reading is hard” videotape, Delta/CAL)
• Cochran, Effie P., (ed.). (2002). Mainstreaming. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
• Coelho, Elizabeth. (2004). Adding English: A guide to teaching in multilingual classrooms. Don Mills, Ontario: Pippin.
• Countryman, Joan. (1992). Writing to learn mathematics. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  Cummins, Jim. (2005 [1984]). Language proficiency, bilingualism , and academic achievement. In Richard-Amato, Patricia A. & Snow, Marguerite A., (eds.), Academic success for English Language Learners. White Plains, NY: Pearson/Longman. 76-86. (Originally printed in Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy, pp. 136-151. San Diego, CA: College-Hill.)
• Davison, Chris & Williams, Alan. (2001). Integrating language and content: Unresolved issues. In Mohan, Bernard, Leung, Constant & Davison, Chris, English as a Second Language in the mainstream: Teaching, learning and identity. Harlow, England/London: Longman. 51-70.
• Deller, Sheelagh & Price, Christine. (2007). Teaching other subjects through English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Díaz-Rico, Lynne T. & Weed, Kathryn Z. (2002). The crosscultural, language and academic development handbook. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. (See especially Ch. 7: Language and content area assessment, pp. 180-195.)
• Dornan, Reade, Rosen, Lois M. & Wilson, Marilyn. (2005). Lesson designs for reading comprehension and vocabulary development. In Richard-Amato, Patricia A. & Snow, Marguerite A.,(eds.), Academic success for English Language Learners. White Plains, NY: Pearson/Longman. 248-274.
• Echevarria, Jana & Graves, Anne. (2007 [1998]). Sheltered content instruction: Teaching English Language Learners with diverse abilities, 3rd ed. Boston: Pearson.
• Echevarria, Jana, Vogt, MaryEllen & Short, Deborah J. (2008 [2000]). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP Model, 3rd ed.. Boston: Pearson (Allyn & Bacon).
• Ellis, Rod. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  Faltis, Christian J. & Coulter, Cathy A. (2008). Teaching English learners and immigrant students in secondary schools. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
• Fichtner, Dan, Peitzman, Faye & Sasser, Linda. (1994). What’s fair? Assessing subject matter knowledge of LEP students in sheltered classrooms. In Peitzman, Faye & Gadda, George, (eds.), With different eyes: Insights into teaching language minority students across the disciplines. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 114-123.
• Fisher, Douglas, Brozo, William G., Frey, Nancy, & Ivey, Gay. (2007). 50 content area strategies for adolescent literacy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
• Freeman, Yvonne S. & Freeman, David E. (2002). Closing the achievement gap: How to
  reach limited-formal-schooling and long-term English learners. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
• García, Gilbert G., (ed.). (2003). English learners: Reaching the highest level of English
  literacy. Newark, DE: IRA.
• Gianelli, Marge C. (1997). Thematic units: Creating an environment for learning. In
  Snow, Marguerite A. & Brinton, Donna M., (eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content. White Plains, NY: Longman. 142-148.
• Gibbons, Pauline. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second
  language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
• Gonzalez, Virginia, Yawkey, Thomas & Minaya-Rowe, Liliana. (2006). ESL teaching and learning. Boston: Pearson. (See especially, for discussion of standards, pp. 90-96, 232-233.) Gottlieb, Margo. (2006). Assessing English Language Learners: Bridges from language proficiency to academic achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
• Grabe, William & Stoller, Fredricka L. (1997). Content-based instruction: Research foundations. In Snow, Marguerite A. & Brinton, Donna M., (eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content. White Plains, NY: Longman. 5-21.
• Grognet, Allene, Jameson, Judith, Franco, Lynda & Derrick-Mescua, Maria. (2000). Enhancing English language learning in elementary classrooms: Study guide (to accompany video). McHenry, IL: Delta/CAL.
• Hayes, Curtis W., Bahruth, Robert & Kessler, Carolyn. (1991). Literacy con cariño. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
• Hein, George E. & Price, Sabra. (1994). Active assessment for active science: A guide for elementary school teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
• Holten, Christine. (1997). Literature: A quintessential content. In Snow, Marguerite A. & Brinton, Donna M., (eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content. White Plains, NY: Longman. 377-387.
• Houk, Farin A. (2005). Supporting English Language Learners: A guide for teachers and administrators. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
• Jameson, Judith H. (2003). Enriching content classes for secondary ESOL students: Study guide (to accompany video). McHenry, IL: Delta/CAL.
• Jordan, R.R. (1997). English for Academic Purposes: A guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kaufman, Dorit & Crandall, JoAnn, (eds.). (2005). Content-based instruction in primary and secondary school settings. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
• Kim, Soonhyang. (2005). Academic oral communication needs of East Asian international graduate students in non-science and non-engineering fields. English for Specific Purposes 25 (4): 479-489.
• Kinsella, Kate. (1997). Moving from comprehensible input to “learning to learn” in content-based instruction. In Snow, Marguerite A. & Brinton, Donna M., (eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content. White Plains, NY: Longman. 46-68.
• Lacina, Jan, Levine, Linda N. & Sowa, Patience. (2006). Helping English Language Learners succeed in pre-K-elementary schools: Collaborative partnerships between ESL and classroom teachers. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
• Larimer, Ruth E. & Schleicher, Leigh, (eds.). (1999). New ways in using authentic materials in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
• Lightbown, Patsy & Spada, Nina. (2006). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lorenzo, Francisco. (2007). An analytical framework of language integration in L2 content-based courses: The European dimension. Language and Education 21 (6): 502-514.
• McElroy, Keith & Hollins, Etta R. (1999). Productive science teaching for inner-city African American students. In Hollins, Etta R. & Oliver, E.I., (eds.), Pathways to success in school. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 61-71.
• McKenna, Michael C. & Robinson, Richard D. (1997). Teaching through text. NY: Longman.
• Mercer, Neil & Sams, Claire. (2006). Teaching children how to use language to solve maths problems. Language and Education 20 (6): 507-528.
• Mohan, Bernard. (2001). The second language as a medium of learning. In Mohan, Bernard, Leung, Constant & Davison, Chris, English as a Second Language in the mainstream: Teaching, learning and identity. Harlow, England/London: Longman. 107-126.
• Mueller, Alicia. (1999). Celebrating our differences through multicultural activities: The collaboration and integration of music across the disciplines. In Hollins, Etta R. & Oliver, E.I., (eds.), Pathways to success in school. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 157-174..
  Numrich, Carol. (2001). Theme-based instruction: Fieldwork in a small Connecticut town. In Murphy, John & Byrd, Patricia, (eds.), Understanding the courses we teach. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. 390-408.
• O’Malley, J. Michael & Pierce, Lorraine Valdéz. (1996). Authentic assessment for English language learners: Practical approaches for teachers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Pally, Marcia. (2000). Sustaining interest/advancing learning. In Pally, Marcia, (ed.), Sustained content teaching in academic ESL/EFL. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 1-18.
• Peitzman, Faye & Gadda, George, (eds.). (1994). With different eyes: Insights into teaching language minority students across the disciplines. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Presmeg, Norma C. (1999). Cultually mediated instruction in mathematics: Strengths and barriers. In Hollins, Etta R. & Oliver, E.I., (eds.), Pathways to success in school. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 35-46.
• Rea, Denise M. & Mercuri, Sandra P. (2006). Research-based strategies for English Language Learners: How to reach goals and meet standards, K-8. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
• Reiss, Jodi. (2005). Teaching content to English Language Learners. White Plains, NY: Longman.
• Rosenthal, Judith W. (1996). Teaching science to language minority students. Clevedon/Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
• Samway, Katharine D. & McKeon, Denise. (1999). Myths and realities: Best practices for language minority students. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
• Scott, Johanna, (ed.). (1992). Science and language links. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. (First published 1992, Australian Reading Association.)
• Sharpe, Tina. (2006). “Unpacking” scaffolding: Identifying discourse and multimodal strategies that support learning. Language and Education 20 (3): 211-231.
• Schleppegrell, Mary J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Scovel, Tom. (2001). Learning new languages. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
• Skolnick, Joan, Dulberg, Nancy & Maestre, Thea. (2004). Through other eyes: Developing empathy and multicultural perspectives in the social studies. Don Mills, Ontario: Pippin.
• Snow, Marguerite A. & Brinton, Donna M., (eds.). (1997). The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content. White Plains, NY: Longman.
• Spencer, Brenda & Guillaume, Andrea M. (2006). Integrating curriculum through the learning cycle: Content-based reading and vocabulary instruction. The Reading Teacher 60 (3): 206-219.
• Stoller, Fredricka L. & Grabe, William. (1997). A six-T’s approach to content-based instruction. In Snow, Marguerite A. & Brinton, Donna M., (eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content. White Plains, NY: Longman. 78-94.
• TESOL. (1997). ESL standards for pre-K-12 students. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. (original TESOL standards)
• TESOL. (2006). PreK-12 English language proficiency standards. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. (newest TESOL standards)
• Thier, Marlene. (2002). The new science literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
• Unrau, Norman J. (1997). Thoughtful teachers, thoughtful learners. Scarborough, Ontario: Pippin.
• Walquí, Aída. (2000). Access and engagement. McHenry, IL: Delta/CAL.
• Young, Katherine A. (1994). Constructing buildings, bridges, & minds: Building an integrated curriculum through social studies. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
• Zaslavsky, Claudia. (1996). The multicultural math classroom: Bringing in the world. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

A WORD ABOUT CONTENT-BASED SECOND LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION

A WORD ABOUT CONTENT-BASED SECOND LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION

As future teachers of English as a second or foreign language in the United States, Taiwan, and Korea, we are excited about the opportunities that content-based instruction (CBI) provides for enhancing second language (L2) learning. As you will see in the draft lessons on this website, we have attempted to apply important CBI principles in lessons designed to meet the needs of L2 students----of various ages and language backgrounds-- in our current and future teaching contexts. We hope you will be able to adapt these lessons for your own students. These CBI principles are discussed and exemplified in many of the resources we list below. Our list of resources includes only a handful of the many useful materials on the topic of content-based instruction. As outlined in Grabe & Stoller 1997, Stoller & Grabe 1997, Mohan 2001, Chamot & O’Malley 1994, Echevarria & Graves 2007, Echevarria, Vogt & Short 2008, Mohan 2001, Davison & Williams 2001, among many others, the guiding principles for this CBI website include:

• Integrating interesting, useful, and motivational content (ideally, through authentic materials) with language, including academic content such as mathematics, science, social studies, and literature/language arts, and more general content, such as music, photography, sports, consumer health, and cooking. (See below, for example, Bailey 2000, Holten 1997, Larimer & Schleicher 1999, Lorenzo 2007, Skolnick et al. 2004, Zaslavsky 1996.)


• Scaffolding learning, so that L2 students can undertake challenging tasks successfully. (See, for ex., Echevarria & Graves 2007, Echevarria et al. 2008, Gibbons 2002, Sharpe 2006.)


• Considering a vast array of academic language features that can be meaningfully introduced and practiced through content-related lessons. These features include: aspects of the four macroskills (reading, writing, listening, speaking), as well as aspects of pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, and pragmatics, and word-level to paragraph/discourse-level features. Within the area of vocabulary, we have considered not only the “technical terms” necessary for completing the content aspects of our lessons, but other vocabulary learning needs, as well, including introducing vocabulary learning strategies, more general useful vocabulary with a special content-specific meaning, and review of vocabulary by categories, so that students are always re-activating and using known and new vocabulary items. (See, for example, Bearne 1999, Cummins 2005 [1984], Dornan et al. 2005, Fisher et al. 2007, Jordan 1997, Kim 2005, Kinsella 1997, McKenna & Robinson 1997, Mercer & Sams 2006, Schleppegrell 2004, Spencer & Guillaume 2006, Thier 2002.)


• Where possible, designing a series of lessons on the same topic, so that students both become more expert in the actual content, and also have many opportunities to repeatedly hear/see and use the vocabulary and structures related to that topic. This principle, expanded to a thematic unit or an entire semester-long course, is known as “sustained content teaching.” (For more information on thematic and sustained content teaching, see, for example, Bourke 2006, Gianelli 1997, Hayes et al. 1991, Numrich 2001, Pally 2000.)


• Allowing content needs, topics and projects to inspire language teaching, and language features to inspire content connections. For example, if students are to write an original recipe as part of a cooking unit, the teacher can naturally introduce the imperative and sequencing words. If the curriculum calls for introducing conditional (if….then…), writing and reading rules for various sports can be an excellent content-related context. (See, for example, case studies in Kaufman & Crandall 2005.)


• Drawing from and applying a variety of sources in lesson/task design, including national and state language, content, and ESL/EFL standards and curriculum, including curriculum guidelines from Taiwan and Korea (See, for example, González et al. 2006, TESOL 1997 & 2006).


• Including in lesson and task design, attention to important findings from second language acquisition: That learners need frequent opportunities to practice and to be immersed in comprehensible input, and that they can enhance their learning through interaction with peers (Brown 2000, Ellis 1997, Grabe & Stoller 1997, Lightbown & Spada 2006, Scovel 2001).


• Encouraging “higher-order” thinking and opportunities to practice “higher-order” academic language functions, by including such thought processes as evaluating, synthesizing, and comparing and contrasting (Bailey 2000, Chamot 2005, Chamot & O’Malley 1994, Pally 2000, Unrau 1997).


• Emphasizing strategies for learning how to learn (Chamot 2005, Chamot & O’Malley 1994, Kinsella 1997).

As you will notice in the formats of lessons, we were also informed by lesson planning and teacher self-evaluation procedures introduced in the SIOP (Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol) Model (Echevarria & Graves 2007, Echevarria, Vogt & Short 2008). While we recognize the importance of frequent assessment of learners through a variety of measures, this was not our area of expertise, so while we have included some drafts of possible informal assessments, please consider these only rough drafts. (See, for example, Fichtner et al. 1994, Gottlieb 2006, Hein & Price 1994, and O’Malley & Pierce 1996, for more information on L2 assessment.)

About Upenn Tesol CBI

Upenn Tesol CBI


is the space for faculties, researchers, instructors and students who are interested in developing and studying Content Based Instruction ( CBI) . This site is originated from CBI course by Prof. Cheri Micheau in TESOL MA program, GSE, Upenn( Universitiy of Pennsylvania ). Hopefully, Upenn Tesol CBI will have CBI blossom in TESOL.

Meet the Materials Designers!

This website is the result of our efforts at applying the concepts of content-based instruction to the design of classroom lessons and activities. We are a group of twelve graduate students at the University of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., and we are all completing a graduate course in Content-based Instruction. Some of us are in our first semesters in a TESOL Master’s program, and some in the final weeks before graduation. Below is a brief sketch on each student:

(You can send an email, if you click a name.)

Name

Amanda

Jeff

Jeong-Eun

Jihae

Liang-Chieh

Merridy

Romy

Sheila

Soomin

William

Ya-Wen

Youn
Chris

We designed this website, our final class project, as a resource for teachers around the world who would like to try out some content-based activities. We consider these drafts that we will want to revise once we have tried them out in our classrooms. For most of us, this is the first time we have tried to integrate language with content in the design of classroom materials. We really welcome your comments and suggestions on the ctivities, and if you have a chance to try them out, please let us know how they worked.