2. Literature Review
2.1 Rationale of CBLI
The term of content-based language instruction refers to an approach to integrate content and language learning
(Brinton, Snow & Wesche, 1989). CBLI is supported by the second language acquisition research. One central principle
which supports the theory of second language acquisition is that “people learn a second language more successfully
when they use the language as a means of acquiring information, rather than as an end in itself” (Richards & Rogers,
2005, p. 207). According to Met (1991), natural language acquisition occurs in context, which is never learned divorced
from meaning, and CBLI provides a context for meaningful communication to occur. To further understand the essential
characteristics and instructional implications of CBLI, three models of CBLI, including the theme-based model, the
sheltered model, and the adjunct model, as well as its effect on reading enhancement are discussed below.
2.2 Models of CBLI
2.2.1 Theme-Based Model
Theme-based language course is structured around topics or themes. Major principles underlying theme-based model
contain automaticity, meaningful learning, intrinsic motivation, and communicative competence (Brown, 2001). Its
primary purpose is to help students develop second language competence within specific topic areas. The topics chosen
can be several unrelated topics or one major topic. Language instructors are responsible for language and content
instruction (Brinton et al., 1989). The theme-based model is mainly employed in adult schools, language institutions,
and all other language programs. It is suitable for low to advanced learners.
2.2.2 Sheltered Model
Sheltered instruction is an approach to use second language acquisition strategies while teaching content area
instruction. In the sheltered model, an academic subject matter is taught by content teachers in content areas, such as
science, mathematics, history, or literature via using language and context to make the information comprehensible.
Characteristics of sheltered instruction include comprehensible inputs, warm and affective environments, high levels of
student interaction, student-centered, hands-on tasks, and comprehensive planning (Echevarria & Graves, 2003). In the
sheltered model, content courses are taught in the second language by a content area specialist to a group of ESL
learners having been grouped together (Richards & Rogers, 2005) or a language teacher with content-area knowledge
(Gaffield-Vile, 1996).
2.2.3 Adjunct Model
Adjunct model constitutes a more sophisticated pattern for the integration of language and content. It aims at connecting
a specially designed language course with a regular academic course. In the adjunct model, students enroll in two linked
courses simultaneously—a content course and a language course. The content instructor focuses on academic concepts
while the language instructor emphasizes language skills using the content-area subject as a background for
contextualizing the language learning process (Brinton et al., 1989). The rationale of this model is that the linked
courses can assist students developing academic coping strategies and cognitive skills which can be transferred to other
disciplines. The adjunct model is suitable for high intermediate to advanced levels (Brinton et al., 1989).
In summary, these three models of CBLI share a number of common features. First, authentic tasks and materials are
used in the three models. Second, they all share the principle that helps students deal with the content materials. They
also differ in several ways, including the course aim and learning objectives, instructor’s roles, students’ proficiency
levels, and evaluation approaches.
2.3 Researches on Content-Based Language Instruction and Reading Comprehension
There is abundant evidence which is supportive of CBLI in promoting EFL students reading comprehension; the major
reason is the use of academic discipline-based topics as content in CBLI. A study conducted by Kasper (1997a) was to
assess the effect of CBLI and the subsequent academic performance of ESL students. Subjects were 152 ESL students at
Kingsborough Community College – 73 students were assigned to the experimental group and 79 to the control group.
The major difference between students in these two groups was in the nature of the textual materials used in instruction.
The material that the content-based group used was topic-related to their academic discipline; while the material that the Asian Social Science March, 2010
79
non-content-based group used was not grounded in any specific academic disciplines, but rather covered a variety of
topics. The result indicated that students in the experimental group obtained significantly higher average scores than did
students in the control group, with the overall average score of 81% for the experimental group and 68% for the control
group. As to the subsequent effect of CBLI, after completing the first year’s ESL course, the students in the subject
sample went on to a number of different classes taught by a larger pool of instructors than was present at their first year.
In all four semesters of this study, the result indicated that students in the experimental group obtained significantly high
grades on the reading assessment examination than did students in the control group, with the overall average score of
75% for the experimental group and 67% for the control group. The result suggests that students accumulated adequate
background knowledge on topics when they continually dealt with academically-oriented topics. The accumulation of
the background knowledge could facilitate the development of reading comprehension. These findings are closely
supported by Kasper’s (1994a, 1995a, 1995/96, 1997a) and Parkinson’s (2000) studies, showing that students’ reading
comprehension can be improved by using academic discipline-based topics. Through the discipline-based topics,
students become aware of how to construct meanings from information stored in their memory, how to extract relevant
information from the larger text contexts, and how to filter out redundant or irrelevant information. The conclusion of
those studies is that the use of academic discipline-based topics as content in CBLI can accumulate students’
background knowledge, construct schemata, increase metacognition of the reading process, and lead to the efficient use
of reading comprehension strategies.
Besides the factor of using academic discipline-based topics as content contributing to the effect of CBLI on students’
reading comprehension, abundant evidence shows that students’ development of reading comprehension is related to the
systematic use of content-based instructional strategies. A study conducted by Glenn (2005), the purpose of her study
was to examine the effect of English literacy proficiency, academic English literacy, and content literacy of 30
Spanish-speaking students enrolled in a bilingual 10th grade Global Studies course in a public school in New York City
through the sheltered content approach. The result indicated that students’ English language reading score increased
with the mean score of the post-reading 65.87, comparing to the mean score of the pre-reading 18.4. The result also
showed the gains on students’ academic English reading with the mean score of pre-reading 33.65, comparing to the
mean score of post-reading 58.2. Glenn concludes that curriculum delivered through systematic use of content-based
instructional strategies, including explicit reading strategies instruction, explicit language objective introduction,
explicit core vocabulary introduction, activating background knowledge and schemata, prior knowledge developing,
scaffolded modified instruction through well-structured interaction and activities, and the use of authentic reading
materials, helps students contextualize concepts and expand their reading skills. Such result is coherent with the
previous study (Kasper, 1995b), indicating that the systematic use of content-based instructional strategies contributes
to students’ reading comprehension.
Despite the positive effects on CBLI, some scholars disagree that CBLI is an effective approach if teachers lack specific
linguistic knowledge and skills to help students deliver a language focus on reading. A study done by Creese (2005)
indicated that reading comprehension working in the content classroom is given little status because teachers lack
specific linguistic knowledge and skills on CBLI. Data from a year-long ethnography in three London secondary
schools was used to explore how teachers and students managed the content and language interface in a subject-focused
classroom. The result showed that students often rejected a focus on the metalinguistic function, which was not relevant
to subject learning. The major reason is that teachers are often unclear about the relationship between form and function
in language nor make it working in the subject classroom, which results in CBLI as an ineffective approach in students’
reading comprehension development. In fact, in the study conducted by Pawan (2008), data were derived from 33
content-area teachers while they were pursuing professional development in an American university classroom over 32
weeks. Survey findings in the study indicated that 38.5% of the content-area teachers felt that collaboration with their
ESL teacher counterparts was necessary in CBLI because they do not feel equipped to undertake English language
instruction and thus they rely on ESL teachers to provide assistance. In conclusion, those studies reveal that teachers’
lack of linguistic knowledge and skills results in the ineffectiveness of CBLI on students’ reading comprehension.
Consequently, the present study aimed at examining the effect of CBLI on EFL students’ reading comprehension via the
employment of CBLI. It is assumed that EFL students’ reading comprehensio
2. Literature Review
2.1 Rationale of CBLI
The term of content-based language instruction refers to an approach to integrate content and language learning
(Brinton, Snow & Wesche, 1989). CBLI is supported by the second language acquisition research. One central principle
which supports the theory of second language acquisition is that “people learn a second language more successfully
when they use the language as a means of acquiring information, rather than as an end in itself” (Richards & Rogers,
2005, p. 207). According to Met (1991), natural language acquisition occurs in context, which is never learned divorced
from meaning, and CBLI provides a context for meaningful communication to occur. To further understand the essential
characteristics and instructional implications of CBLI, three models of CBLI, including the theme-based model, the
sheltered model, and the adjunct model, as well as its effect on reading enhancement are discussed below.
2.2 Models of CBLI
2.2.1 Theme-Based Model
Theme-based language course is structured around topics or themes. Major principles underlying theme-based model
contain automaticity, meaningful learning, intrinsic motivation, and communicative competence (Brown, 2001). Its
primary purpose is to help students develop second language competence within specific topic areas. The topics chosen
can be several unrelated topics or one major topic. Language instructors are responsible for language and content
instruction (Brinton et al., 1989). The theme-based model is mainly employed in adult schools, language institutions,
and all other language programs. It is suitable for low to advanced learners.
2.2.2 Sheltered Model
Sheltered instruction is an approach to use second language acquisition strategies while teaching content area
instruction. In the sheltered model, an academic subject matter is taught by content teachers in content areas, such as
science, mathematics, history, or literature via using language and context to make the information comprehensible.
Characteristics of sheltered instruction include comprehensible inputs, warm and affective environments, high levels of
student interaction, student-centered, hands-on tasks, and comprehensive planning (Echevarria & Graves, 2003). In the
sheltered model, content courses are taught in the second language by a content area specialist to a group of ESL
learners having been grouped together (Richards & Rogers, 2005) or a language teacher with content-area knowledge
(Gaffield-Vile, 1996).
2.2.3 Adjunct Model
Adjunct model constitutes a more sophisticated pattern for the integration of language and content. It aims at connecting
a specially designed language course with a regular academic course. In the adjunct model, students enroll in two linked
courses simultaneously—a content course and a language course. The content instructor focuses on academic concepts
while the language instructor emphasizes language skills using the content-area subject as a background for
contextualizing the language learning process (Brinton et al., 1989). The rationale of this model is that the linked
courses can assist students developing academic coping strategies and cognitive skills which can be transferred to other
disciplines. The adjunct model is suitable for high intermediate to advanced levels (Brinton et al., 1989).
In summary, these three models of CBLI share a number of common features. First, authentic tasks and materials are
used in the three models. Second, they all share the principle that helps students deal with the content materials. They
also differ in several ways, including the course aim and learning objectives, instructor’s roles, students’ proficiency
levels, and evaluation approaches.
2.3 Researches on Content-Based Language Instruction and Reading Comprehension
There is abundant evidence which is supportive of CBLI in promoting EFL students reading comprehension; the major
reason is the use of academic discipline-based topics as content in CBLI. A study conducted by Kasper (1997a) was to
assess the effect of CBLI and the subsequent academic performance of ESL students. Subjects were 152 ESL students at
Kingsborough Community College – 73 students were assigned to the experimental group and 79 to the control group.
The major difference between students in these two groups was in the nature of the textual materials used in instruction.
The material that the content-based group used was topic-related to their academic discipline; while the material that the Asian Social Science March, 2010
79
non-content-based group used was not grounded in any specific academic disciplines, but rather covered a variety of
topics. The result indicated that students in the experimental group obtained significantly higher average scores than did
students in the control group, with the overall average score of 81% for the experimental group and 68% for the control
group. As to the subsequent effect of CBLI, after completing the first year’s ESL course, the students in the subject
sample went on to a number of different classes taught by a larger pool of instructors than was present at their first year.
In all four semesters of this study, the result indicated that students in the experimental group obtained significantly high
grades on the reading assessment examination than did students in the control group, with the overall average score of
75% for the experimental group and 67% for the control group. The result suggests that students accumulated adequate
background knowledge on topics when they continually dealt with academically-oriented topics. The accumulation of
the background knowledge could facilitate the development of reading comprehension. These findings are closely
supported by Kasper’s (1994a, 1995a, 1995/96, 1997a) and Parkinson’s (2000) studies, showing that students’ reading
comprehension can be improved by using academic discipline-based topics. Through the discipline-based topics,
students become aware of how to construct meanings from information stored in their memory, how to extract relevant
information from the larger text contexts, and how to filter out redundant or irrelevant information. The conclusion of
those studies is that the use of academic discipline-based topics as content in CBLI can accumulate students’
background knowledge, construct schemata, increase metacognition of the reading process, and lead to the efficient use
of reading comprehension strategies.
Besides the factor of using academic discipline-based topics as content contributing to the effect of CBLI on students’
reading comprehension, abundant evidence shows that students’ development of reading comprehension is related to the
systematic use of content-based instructional strategies. A study conducted by Glenn (2005), the purpose of her study
was to examine the effect of English literacy proficiency, academic English literacy, and content literacy of 30
Spanish-speaking students enrolled in a bilingual 10th grade Global Studies course in a public school in New York City
through the sheltered content approach. The result indicated that students’ English language reading score increased
with the mean score of the post-reading 65.87, comparing to the mean score of the pre-reading 18.4. The result also
showed the gains on students’ academic English reading with the mean score of pre-reading 33.65, comparing to the
mean score of post-reading 58.2. Glenn concludes that curriculum delivered through systematic use of content-based
instructional strategies, including explicit reading strategies instruction, explicit language objective introduction,
explicit core vocabulary introduction, activating background knowledge and schemata, prior knowledge developing,
scaffolded modified instruction through well-structured interaction and activities, and the use of authentic reading
materials, helps students contextualize concepts and expand their reading skills. Such result is coherent with the
previous study (Kasper, 1995b), indicating that the systematic use of content-based instructional strategies contributes
to students’ reading comprehension.
Despite the positive effects on CBLI, some scholars disagree that CBLI is an effective approach if teachers lack specific
linguistic knowledge and skills to help students deliver a language focus on reading. A study done by Creese (2005)
indicated that reading comprehension working in the content classroom is given little status because teachers lack
specific linguistic knowledge and skills on CBLI. Data from a year-long ethnography in three London secondary
schools was used to explore how teachers and students managed the content and language interface in a subject-focused
classroom. The result showed that students often rejected a focus on the metalinguistic function, which was not relevant
to subject learning. The major reason is that teachers are often unclear about the relationship between form and function
in language nor make it working in the subject classroom, which results in CBLI as an ineffective approach in students’
reading comprehension development. In fact, in the study conducted by Pawan (2008), data were derived from 33
content-area teachers while they were pursuing professional development in an American university classroom over 32
weeks. Survey findings in the study indicated that 38.5% of the content-area teachers felt that collaboration with their
ESL teacher counterparts was necessary in CBLI because they do not feel equipped to undertake English language
instruction and thus they rely on ESL teachers to provide assistance. In conclusion, those studies reveal that teachers’
lack of linguistic knowledge and skills results in the ineffectiveness of CBLI on students’ reading comprehension.
Consequently, the present study aimed at examining the effect of CBLI on EFL students’ reading comprehension via the
employment of CBLI. It is assumed that EFL students’ reading comprehensio
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
