A farewell to content-based instruction at Suez Canal University

A farewell to content-based instruction at Suez Canal University Mohamed Ismail Abu-Rahmah Prof. of English Education at Suez Canal University One approach to maximizing the benefits and efficiency of teaching English is to incorporate specialized content or what is known as content-based instruction (CBI) in language courses. This paper refutes this hypothesis and suggests an alternative – a functional, linguistics-based approach. It also describes the field-testing and effectiveness of applying such an approach. Introduction Content-based Instruction (henceforth CBI) is a type of ESP courses in which the English course incorporates topics related to the specialization or major of the learners. (See Snow et al 1998; Esky 1997; Snow and Brinton 1997; Swain & Johnson 1997; Curtain and Pesola 1994; Genesee 1994; Wesche 1993; Crandall 1993; Met 1991; Stoller 1990; Crandall & Tucker 1990; Brinton et al. 1989; Mohan 1986; Read 1984.) According to Stoller (1990: 10, citing Esky 1984) ‘A contentbased curriculum focuses on subject matter or themes (e.g., environmental pollution), with an additional concern for language and function…learners do not begin with a list of either forms or functions that they wish to produce, but with a subject that they are interested in and would like to learn more or say something about’. 1 CBI is not a new phenomenon. Swain and Johnson (1997:1) connect it with language immersion education in Canada 1965 and indicate that ‘…until the rise of nationalism, few languages other than those of the great empires, religions, and civilizations were considered competent or worthy to carry the content of a formal curriculum’. Brinton et al (1989:5) consider CBI as an approach for '...the integration of particular content with language teaching aims...the concurrent teaching of academic subject matter and second language skills’ (added stress). Thus, they view the target language as ‘…the vehicle through which subject matter content is learned rather than as the immediate object of study’ (p. 5). In line with Brinton et al (Ibid.), Crandall & Tucker (1990:187) consider CBI as an approach for the integration of language skills with the content of subject matter. To quote their exact words: ‘[CBI is] …an approach to language instruction that integrates the presentation of topics or tasks from subject matter classes (e.g., math, social studies) within the context of teaching a second or foreign language’. In this investigation, CBI simply means that if we have an English course for the Medical School, it should include: medical content such as cloning, fertility, stem cell, digestive system, etc. If the English course is for the students of Petroleum Engineering, it should include: oil drilling, mining, oil production, minerals, etc. CBI has many benefits. Esky (1984:11), for example, states that CBI helps students to explore a specific content through language. ‘…such content exploration and language exposure…naturally promote more sophisticated language use…content and language 2 are mutually reinforcing. The content provided is not merely something with which to practice language; rather, language becomes the vehicle with which to explore content’. The Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (University of Minnesota), citing Grabe & Stoller (1997) and others, provides a list of citations to do with the benefits of CBI. The list can be summarized as follows: 1. The content in CBI is cognitively engaging and demanding 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. for the learner, and includes material that extends beyond the target language or target culture (Met 1991: 150). CBI provides a context for meaningful communication to occur; natural language is never learned divorced from meaning (Curtain 1995). CBI increases Second language acquisition because students learn language best when there is an emphasis on relevant, meaningful content rather than on the language itself. "People do not learn languages and then use them, but learn languages by using them" (Georgetown Website). Form and meaning are important and are not readily separable in language learning (Lightbrown & Spada 1993; Met 1991; Wells 1994). CBI promotes negotiation of meaning, which is known to enhance language (Lightbrown & Spada 1993). Second language acquisition is enhanced by comprehensible input, which is a key pedagogical technique in CBI (Krashen 1982 & 1985). According to Cummins' (1981) notion of Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) as contrasted with Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS), students 3 need to be learning content while they are developing CALP. 9. Postponing content instruction while students develop more advanced (academic) language is impractical and ignores students' needs, interests, and cognitive levels (Byrnes, 2000). 10. In traditional language instruction, the focus is on the language itself whereas CBI makes language learning more concrete rather than abstract. CBI integrates language with content, which, in turn, respects the specificity of functional language use; it recognizes that meaning changes depending upon context (Genesee 1994). 11. More sophisticated, complex language is best taught within a framework that focuses on complex and authentic content. 12. CBI lends itself to cooperative learning, which, as has been indicated by research, results in improved learning (Slavin, 1995; Crandall, 1993). 13. CBI includes a variety of thinking skills, and learning strategies which lead to rich language development, e.g., information gathering skills of observing, questioning; organizing skills of categorizing, comparing, representing; analyzing skills of identifying main ideas, identifying attributes and components, identifying relationships, patterns; generating skills of inferring, predicting, estimating (ASCD, Dimensions of Thinking) (Curtain, 1995; Met, 1991). 14. Research on extensive reading in a second language shows that reading coherent extended content leads to improved language abilities, and higher motivation (Elley 1991). 15. According to Anderson (1990 & 1993), the content in CBI has a greater number of connections to other information. 4 These connections lead to deeper processing, which results in better learning. 16. According to Singer (1990), facts and skills taught in isolation need much more practice and rehearsal before they can be internalized or put into long term memory whereas thematically organized information is easier to remember and leads to improved learning. Here content acts as the driving force for the connections to be made 17. Content-based instruction provides for cognitive engagement; tasks that are intrinsically interesting and cognitively engaging will lead to more and better opportunities for second language acquisition (Byrnes 2000). 18. Content-based instruction emphasizes a connection to real life and real world skills because in content-based classes, students have more opportunities to use the content knowledge and expertise they bring to class; they activate their prior knowledge, which leads to increased learning of language and content material. (Curtain 1995) 19. According to Grabe and Stoller (1997), the adoption of CBI results in language learning, content learning, increased motivation and interest levels, and greater opportunities for employment. 20. CBI allows for greater flexibility to be built into the curriculum and activities; there are more opportunities to adjust to the needs and interests of students. Background and Pilot-Study When assigned to teach the English course at the Faculty of Petroleum and Mining Engineering in Suez (in October 2001), the writer entered the class with the benefits of CBI numerated above 5 in mind. As a warming up activity and for building good rapport with students, the writer used a technique borrowed from the selfassessment area. It is called goal matching and ranking technique. To apply this technique, the students were asked to have a piece of paper and write down a list of topics they preferred to study. Then, each student was asked to dictate their list and the writer wrote it on the blackboard. If the topic was repeated, just a tick would be put next to it. Then, according to the number of the ticks in front of each topic, the list was rearranged, i.e. the topic with a large number of ticks (frequency) was put at the top of the list as shown in Table (1) below. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Table (1) A list of topics suggested by students at the Faculty of Petroleum and Mining Engineering Topic No. of Ticks Terminology study 14 Using dictionary. “We do not know the Latin 12 symbols found next to each entry in the dictionary”, they said. (They mean the transcriptions of words.) Formation of words 10 Scientific English 9 English for the internet 7 Expressions and idioms to memorize 6 How to study English 6 Improving my handwriting 4 Describing an apparatus 3 Tenses 2 6 Surprisingly, the students’ list of topics shown in Table (1) above was entirely different from the list of the researcher shown in Table (2) below. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Table (2) A list of CBI topics prepared by the tutor Topics Importance of learning English Oil Drilling Oil Refining Coal Mining in Egypt Early Iron Mining Natural gas in Egypt Natural gas in Gulf Countries 8. Enhancement of well production 9. The petroleum industry 10. Earth sciences The topics in Table (2) above were selected based on 3 criteria: (1) the background of the writer as to content-based instruction, (2) the regulation of the Faculty of Petroleum and mining Engineering which suggests teaching topics that may help students in their major, and (3) the content and nature of the other courses offered to petroleum students at the same institute. When the two lists of topics were compared, the writer was put in a dilemma because they did not match at all. That was the springboard for exploring the whole situation in a precise and academic way. 7 In the second week of the term, a questionnaire (see Appendix 1) including 5 closed-ended questions and an open-ended question was applied to another class of students in the same academic year (53). The responses of the students to the closed ended-questions are shown in Table (3) below. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. TABLE (3) Findings of the Pilot-Study Questionnaire Students’ responses Questions To a great To some Not at extent % extent % all % Were the aims/purposes of the English course 16 17 65* clear to you? Did the content of the course satisfy your 14 10 73* needs? Were the topics in the course interesting and 4 15 76* motivating? Did you feel that your language level has been 32 14 54 improved since you joined the university? To what extent was the English course you 13 7 77* studied last year useful for you? (*) It means that some students did not answer the question. As shown in the Table (3) above, the aims of the English course were unclear to 65% of respondents; the content of the course did 8 not meet the expectations of 73% of the students; the majority of the respondents (76%) considered the topics included in the course uninteresting and demotivating; nearly a half of the respondents (54%) felt that their language level had not been improved since they joined the university; and finally 77% of the respondents ticked Not at all when asked To what extent was the English course you studied last year useful for you?. As to the findings of the open-ended question (What topics do you suggest for inclusion in the English course?), the majority of respondents (87%) suggested nearly the same topics given by their colleagues in the first group while applying the technique of topic matching and ranking. These topics were far from their specialization (petroleum and mining engineering). The rest (13 %) suggested linguistic topics. After the preliminary exploration of the students’ views applying two simple tools (topic matching and ranking and the questionnaire), it was necessary to explore the views of the subject-matter tutors. Thus, three tutors with different specializations were met: one in the Dept. of Production, the second in the Dept. of Mining and the third in the General Dept. In an open-ended discussion, the two lists of topics were offered to them. They unanimously were in favor of the functional and linguistic list, not the ideational or informational one. They also suggested adding two topics: Report Writing and Rules of Spelling. To them, Report writing was needed because the students carry out projects and they have to report them. Rules of spelling were also urgently necessary because, according to one of the tutors, he could not read or understand the handwritings of students because of the spelling mistakes. 9 Purpose After meeting the subject matter tutors, adding the topics they suggested to the list of topics suggested on the part of students, and comparing it with the list of the writer, it was felt that CBI might be questionable and arguable in some English teaching contexts at the tertiary level. Thus, the central purpose of the current study was extended to include investigating the effectiveness of incorporating specialized content in the English courses offered to the learners of English in 3 contexts: (1) the Faculty of Petroleum and Mining Engineering in Suez (the context which was considered the driving force for initiating this study), (2) the Medical School in Ismailia, and (3) the Faculty of Physical Education in Port Said. It is worth mentioning here that investigating this problem began in the Faculty of Petroleum and Mining and then during the following term, it was replicated in the other two contexts in order to be able to confirm the findings. Method Subjects The subjects in this study were 57 students enrolled in the second year at the Faculty of Petroleum and Mining Engineering in Suez, 51 students enrolled in the second year at the Medical School in Ismailia, and 55 second-year students enrolled in Port-Said Faculty of Physical Education. The subjects were not selected, but they were accidentally assigned to the writer in order to teach them the English course. Material Three lists of topics were selected for the three teaching contexts. As shown in the appendices each list includes 10 topics (5contentbased and 5 non-content-based). Some of the learning materials representing the content-based topics (CBT) were taken from the 10 specialized courses of students and some were downloaded from the Internet. The entire content used in the Faculty of physical Education was downloaded from the Internet because all the courses were offered in Arabic. The learning materials for the non-content based topics (NCBT) were developed by the writer. The tasks and activities accompanying each topic were developed by the researcher. They were traditional (i.e. comprehension yes/no questions, wh-questions, completion exercises, vocabulary exercises, etc.). This helped to control the effect that would have resulted from introducing other types of tasks and activities. An achievement test* was developed. The test, as shown in Appendices, consists of three versions; one for the Faculty of Petroleum, another for the Faculty of medicine and the third was for the Faculty of Physical education. Each version is divided into two equal parts. The first part consists of 5 non content-based questions. These questions are similar in the three contexts. The second part consists of 5 content-based questions, which differ according to the context/major of students (i.e. petroleum & mining, medical or physical education). To establish the reliability and validity of the test, it was pilot-tested with 10 students from the Faculty of Petroleum and mining Engineering. Those students attended treatment but excluded from the final analysis. It was planned to use Cronbach’s alpha to examine how far each question correlated with the other questions in the test and how the questions in the whole test performed as a group. Due to the nature of the questions in the tool and the number of the students who participated in the pilot study, it was difficult to achieve this. However, some modifications to do with the wordings of the questions and the format of the answers were made. Also the time of the answer was specified. This helped to face validate the first version of the test. 11 Procedures 1. Due to the fact that it was beyond my capacity to divide the students into two groups (control and experimental) because they would have the same learning materials and the same endof-the term test, the one group pre-posttest design was applied. Thus, at the beginning of November 2001 and before teaching, the achievement test was administered to some of the students of the Faculty of Petroleum and Mining Engineering. Although the total number of students was more than 100, just around 57 students used to attend the English class. 2. The developed learning materials were taught throughout 8 consecutive sessions (a 90 minute session per week). 3. The same test was administered to the students at the end of the term. 4. The answer sheets of the 10 students who participated in the pilot trial of the test were excluded from the final analysis. 5. The writer and an assistant lecture corrected the test. It is worth mentioning here that a third rater was not needed because the answers of the test questions were very specific. For example, the question what are the methods used for enhancing well productivity? Explain them requires mentioning 5 methods for which 5 points should be given and another 5 points for the explanation. 6. During the following term, the same study was replicated in the other two contexts: the Medical School in Ismailia and the Faculty of Physical Education in Port Said. This required, as indicated above, the selection of 5 content-based topics for the Medical School and another 5 content-based topics for the Faculty of physical Education in Port Said (See the appendices). It also required the preparation and validation of the achievement part of the pre-posttest accompanying these content-based topics for the two contexts. The same procedures 12 used in the first teaching context were exactly applied in the other two contexts. Data Analyses: In any study, the theoretical background is considered the driving force for the formulation of its hypotheses. However, this did not happen in this investigation due to the unexpected findings of the pilot study (topic matching and ranking, the questionnaire and interviewing the tutors). Despite the fact that the theory presented in the introduction above is in favor of the effectiveness and benefits of CBI, the hypotheses of the current investigation were formulated in the negative form as shown below. TABLE (4) The hypotheses of the study Pre-Test Mean Post-Test Mean Scores Scores CBI NCBI CBI NCBI Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 2 Petroleum Students Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 4 Medical Students Hypothesis 5 Hypothesis 6 Specific Ed. Students Key: CBI = content-based items NCBI = non content-based items As shown in Table (4) above, adopting the one-group pre-posttest design resulted in formulating the following 6 hypotheses: 1. In the pre-test, there was no statistically significant difference between the mean scores of the Petroleum students in the content-based items (CBI) and their mean scores in the non-content based items (NCBI). 13 2. In the pre-test, there was no statistically significant difference between the mean score of the Medical School students in the content-based items (CBI) and their mean score in the non-content based items (NCBI). 3. In the pre-test, there was no statistically significant difference between the mean score of the physical Education students in the content-based items (CBI) and their mean scores in the non-content based items (NCBI). 4. In the post-test, there was no statistically significant difference between the mean score of the Petroleum students in the content-based items (CBI) and their mean score in the non-content based items (NCBI). 5. In the post-test, there was no statistically significant difference between the mean score of the Medical School students in the content-based items (CBI) and their mean score in the non-content based items (NCBI). 6. In the post-test, there was no statistically significant difference between the mean score of the physical Education students in the content-based items (CBI) and their mean score in the non-content based items (NCBI). To confirm/refute the hypotheses above the scores of the subjects on the pre-posttest were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Significant findings were obtained as seen below. Findings 1. In the pre-test, there was no statistically significant difference between the mean scores of the content-based items (CBI) and the mean scores of the non-content based items (NCBI) in the three contexts of the experiment. 14 2. In the post-test, there was no statistically significant difference between the mean score of the Petroleum students in the content-based items (CBI) and their mean score in the non-content based items (NCBI). 3. In the post-test, there was no statistically significant difference between the mean score of the Medical School students in the content-based items (CBI) and their mean score in the non-content based items (NCBI). 4. In the post-test, there was a statistically significant difference between the mean score of the Physical Education students in the content-based items (CBI) and their mean score in the non-content based items (NCBI) for the sake of the NCBI. Conclusion In the light of the findings above, we can conclude that: 1. Teaching CBI is not relevant in the contexts where English is the medium of instruction (MOI). 2. This might due too studying the same topics in the other subjects 3. The triviality of what is presented in the English course compared with what is covered in the other courses Summary and Recommendations This study was an attempt to maximize the benefits and efficiency of teaching English at the tertiary level. It investigated the hypothesis of including specialized content or what is known as content-based instruction (CBI) in the English language courses offered at three English teaching contexts at Suez Canal University. In the light of the experimental data obtained, it was 15 refuted in two contexts (Faculty of Petroleum and Mining Engineering and Faculty of Medicine), whereas it was confirmed in the third context (Faculty of Physical Education). Accordingly, it was concluded that CBI might not be effective in the contexts where the other courses were taught in English, whereas it might be effective in the contexts where the other courses were taught in Arabic. Some may still argue that the students of the top faculties do not pay much attention to the language course and focus only on their specialized area. In order to argue for or against this view, this study can be replicated in other CBI contexts where the students have nearly the same academic level, e.g. Faculty of Commerce, Faculty of Agriculture, Faculty of Education, etc. The findings of such studies may confirm the findings of the current study and may propose alternative procedures for maximizing the efficiency of the English courses offered at the tertiary level. References Brinton, D., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Contentbased second language instruction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Byrnes, H. (2000). 'Languages across the curriculum and interdepartmental curriculum construction'. In M-R. Kecht & K. von Hammerstein (2000) (Eds.) 16 Crandall, J. (1993). 'Content-centered learning in the United States'. In. Grabe, W C. et al (eds.). Crandall, J., & Tucker, G. R. (1990). 'Content-based instruction in second and foreign languages'. In A. Padilla, H. H. Fairchild, & C. Valadez (Eds.), Foreign language education: Issues and strategies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Curtain, H. A., & Pesola, C. A. (1995). Languages and children: Making the match (2nd Ed.). NY: Longman. Elley, W. (1991). 'Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-based programs'. Language Learning, 41, 375-411. Eskey, D. E. (1984). 'Content: The missing third dimension in syllabus design'. In Read, J.A.S. (ed.) Case studies in syllabus and course Design: RELC Occasional Papers, No. 31. Eskey, D. E. (1997). 'Syllabus design in content-based instruction'. In M. A. Snow & D. A. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 132-141). White Plains, NY: Longman. Genesee, F. (1994). Integrating language and content: Lessons from immersion. Educational Practice Report 11. National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/miscpubs/ncrcdsll/epr11.htm Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (1997). 'Content-based instruction: Research foundations'. In M. A. Snow, & D. M. Brinton 17 (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 5-21). NY: Longman. Kecht. M-R & K. von Hammerstein (2000) (Eds.). Languages across the curriculum: Interdisciplinary structures and internationalized education. National East Asian Languages Resource Center. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. NY: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. NY: Longman. Lightbrown, P.M. & Spada, N. (1993). How languages are learned. NY: Oxford University Press. Met, M. (1991). 'Learning language through content: Learning content through language'. Foreign Language Annals, 24(4), 281-295. Met. M. (1999, January). Content-based instruction: Defining terms, making decisions. NFLC Reports. Washington, DC: The National Foreign Language Center. Mohan, B. (1986). Language and Content. Reading: AddisonWesely. Read, J.A.S. (ed.) (1984). Case studies in syllabus and Course Design: RELC Occasional Papers, No. 31. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center. Snow, M., and Brinton, D. (eds.) (1997). The Content-Based Classroom: Perspectives on Integrating Language and Content. New York: Addison-Wesley Longman. 18 Stoller, f. L. (Fall 1990). “Films and Videotapes in the contentbased ESL/EFL classroom”. Forum, Vol. XXVIII, No.4, pp.10-14. Singer, M. (1990). Psychology of language: An introduction to sentence and discourse processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Stoller, F. (2002, March). 'Content-Based Instruction: A Shell for Language Teaching or a Framework for Strategic Language and Content Learning?'. Keynote presented at the annual meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Salt Lake City. Swain, M. & Johnson, R.K. (1997). 'Immersion education: A category within bilingual education'. In R. K. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.) Immersion Education: International Perspectives (pp. 1-16). NY: Cambridge University Press. Swain, M. (1985). 'Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development'. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Wells, G. (1994). 'The complementary contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky to a language-based theory of learning'. Linguistics and Education, 6, 41-90. Wesche, M. B. (1993). 'Discipline-based approaches to language study: Research issues and outcomes'. In M. Krueger & F. Ryan (Eds.) Language and content: Discipline- and 19 content-based approaches to language study. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath. Appendix (1) Topics used in the 3 Faculties A. Non-content-based topics: These topics were used in 3 Faculties: Faculty of Petroleum, Faculty of Medicine, and Faculty of Physical Education 1. Affixation in English 2. Phonemic symbols and use of dictionary. 3. Report writing 4. Rules of spelling 5. Graphic organizers B. Content-based topics I. Faculty of Petroleum 1. Oil Drilling 2. Enhancement of well production 3. Coal mining in Egypt 4. Early iron mining 5. Gulf natural gas II. Faculty of Medicine 1. Cloning for cures 2. Dolly the sheep and Tetra the monkey 3. A study links biking to male infertility 4. Biological weapons 5. Monkey AIDS vaccine reduces virus III. Faculty of Physical Education 1. Football 2. Importance of Movement & Physical activity 20 3. 4. 5. Olympic Games: A Brief History Olympic Games: Atlanta 1996 & Sydney 2000 The Energy - Boosting diet *The pre-posttest is found with the author. 21