Social Work Undergraduates’ Impressions of Content-based Language Teaching

Abstract

The aim of this small scale research is to explore the efficacy and significance of content-based language teaching (CBLT) (also referred to as content-based instruction or CBI) in the learning of English as a foreign language in undergraduate curricula at Macao Polytechnic Institute (MPI). Specialized English language courses that involve professional content are known as English for specific purposes, with content-based language teaching being an example of such a specialized approach integrating the learning of language with the learning of some other content, which in the present study concerns the Social Work Degree offered at MPI. In order to ascertain the efficacy and viability of such a language learning methodology a survey was administered to two of the researcher’s classes, that is, one Year 2 Day class and one Year 2 Evening class in the School of Public Administration. The study highlights the efficacy and viability that content-based language teaching offers the EFL teacher, as seen in the motivation and enthusiasm of the students for learning English as a result of integrating language acquisition methods with subject knowledge. Challenges to the achievement of English language competence in making use of content-based language teaching are addressed, including the need for the judicious and appropriate selection and presentation of relevant academic content to English language learners of varying proficiency in the target language. Implications and recommendations are made for English language teachers intending to use content-based language teaching in the achievement of their course aims.

Keywords

Language acquisition / TEFL / communicative language teaching / content-based language teaching

References

[1] Biggs, John. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. (2nd ed.) UK: OUP.

[2] Brinton, Donna M.; Snow, Marguerite A. & Wesche, Marjorie B. (1989). Content—based second language instruction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

[3] Brown, H. Douglas. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. (4th ed.) New York: Longman.

[4] Chapple, Lynda & Curtis, Andy. (2000). Content—based instruction in Hong Kong: Student responses to film. System, 28, 419-433.

[5] Coyle, Do; Hood, Philip & Marsh, David. (2010). CLIL Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[6] Cummins, James. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121—9.

[7] Cummins, James. (1994). The acquisition of English as a second language. In Spangenberg—Urbschat, K. & Pritchard, R. (Eds.) Reading instruction for ESL students. Delaware: International Reading Association.

[8] Eurydice. (2006). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice.

[9] Evans, Norman W.; Hartshorn, K. James & Anderson, Neil J. (2010). A principled approach to content—based materials development for reading. In Harwood, N. (Ed.), English language teaching materials: Theory and practice (pp. 131-156). New York: Cambridge University Press.

[10] Gonzalez, D. & St. Louis, R. (2002). Content—based English for specific purposes course design: The case of English for architecture. In J. Crandall & D. Kaufmann (Eds.), Content—based instruction in higher educational settings (pp. 93-106). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

[11] Grabe, William & Stoller, Fredricka L. (1997). Content—based instruction: Research foundations. In M.A. Snow & D.M. Brinton (Eds.), The content—based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 5-21). New York: Longman.

[12] Guasti, Maria T. (2002). Language acquisition: The growth of grammar. MIT Press.

[13] Horn, Bradley. (2011). The future is now: Preparing a new generation of CBI teachers. English Teaching Forum, 49(3).

[14] Krashen, Stephen D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.

[15] Krashen, Stephen D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.

[16] Krashen, Stephen D. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

[17] Larsen—Freeman, Diane & Anderson, Marti. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[18] Lightbown, Patsy. (2014). Focus on content based language teaching. Oxford: University Press.

[19] Marsh, David. (Ed.) (2002). CLIL/EMILE European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential. European Commission, Public Services Contract DG 3406/001—001.

[20] Owens, C. (2002). Content—based English for academic purposes in a Thai university. In J. Crandall & D. Kaufmann (Eds.), Content—based instruction in higher educational settings (pp. 45-62). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

[21] Rodgers, Daryl M. (2006). Developing content and form: Encouraging evidence from Italian content—based instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 90(3), 373-386.

[22] Swales, John M. (2009). When there is no perfect text: Approaches to the EAP practitioner’s dilemma. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(3), 247-269.

[23] Vygotsky, Lev S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 79-91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[24] Wesche, Marjorie B. (1993). Discipline—based approaches to language study: Research issues and outcomes. In Krueger, M. & Ryan, F. (Eds.) Language and content: Discipline— and content—based approaches to language study (pp. 57-82). Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company.