Teachers’ Experiences with Content-Based Instruction:
Lessons for Teacher Educators
Diane J. Tedick, University of MinnesotaLaurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
LTE Conference, May19, 2011, Minneapolis
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
http://el-c.wikispaces.com
In this presentation we will 1. summarize and briefly present the results of two
phenomenological studies on teacher experiences with CBI, one with foreign language teachers and one with immersion teachers.
2. discuss implications for CBI-focused language teacher preparation and development
3. invite participants to explore questions about needed reforms
Presentation overview
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
Content-Based Instruction Content-based instruction (CBI), or content and language integrated
learning (CLIL) as it is called in Europe, is a curricular approach that uses language as the vehicle to teach non-linguistic content.
Lyster (2007) argues that CBI provides not only the cognitive basis for language learning but also the requisite motivational basis for purposeful communication.
It is an approach implemented in varied instructional contexts (e.g., immersion, FL, ESL), supported by SLA theory, and touted as an effective means to operationalize important societal goals such as the development of
plurilingualism (Europe)
translingual and transcultural competence (U.S.)
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
CBI Challenges CBI, whose primary mission involves balancing
language and content in instruction, is extremely complicated and difficult for teachers to put into practice.
Many studies, especially in the immersion context, have identified challenges to its successful implementation, particularly as they relate to language acquisition.
We know very little about pedagogical challenges teachers face particularly in the U.S. K-12 context where there is a dearth of research.
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
Rationale, Purpose, & Context Rationale & Purpose:
To date, no research has explored teachers’ actual experience of attempting to attend to both content and language in instruction.
It is essential to explore and understand teachers’ actual experience if we are to fully grasp the complexity of balanced content and language instruction.
Thus, two studies were conducted to tap into teachers’ actual experience with CBI.
Context:
A year-long professional development program focused on developing CBI curriculum and designed for foreign language and immersion teachers
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
Participants
Met’s (1999) continuum of CBI programs provides a backdrop for understanding the contexts in which participant teachers taught.
Cammarata & Tedick (in press) 3 immersion teachers:- one elementary (one-way Spanish), - one middle school (one-way French)- one high school (two-way Spanish)
Cammarata (2010)4 Spanish or French teachers: - 1 middle school, - 2 high school, - 1 college
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
Research Questions
Cammarata & Tedick(in press)
What is it like for immersion teachers to attempt to balance content and language in instruction?
Cammarata (2010)
What is FL teachers’ experience of learning to integrate language and content within the context of designing CBI curricula?
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
Phenomenology The studies use a reflective lifeworld research approach to
phenomenological inquiry (Dahlberg et al., 2008).
The principal aim of this form of inquiry is to describe “the world the way it is experienced by humans” (Dahlberg et al., 2008, p. 36). The focus is, thus, on experience—what it is really like to experience something from the
perspective of those who have lived it or are living it;
meaning—what it means to live a particular experience.
It is the exclusive focus on the subject’s experienced meaning that distinguishes phenomenological research from other approaches that focus instead on descriptions of subject’s actions or behaviors (Polkinghorne, 1989).
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
Phenomenology Phenomenology tries to answer fundamental questions
regarding human experiences such as: What does this experience mean for the principal actors
who live it?
What is a particular experience really like for them?
What are its essential features or characteristics that can distinguish it from other type of experiences?
Because these questions were at the heart of our interests for these studies, phenomenology was deemed the most fitting methodology.
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
The process Creation of text: Lived Experience Description (LED) through “free fall writing (one
journal entry prior to the 1st interview) 2 interviews with each participant
Analysis of text: Whole-part-whole reading Identification of key constituents (essential themes) using Giorgi’s
analytical model (1997) & Dahlberg et al.’s approach to Lifeworld research (2008)
Independent and collaborative process between the two researchers (for in press study)
Phenomenological reduction [bracketing, imaginative variation] applied throughout the entire research process
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
Constituents: The FL Study Foreign language teachers’ experience of balancing content
and language in instruction is reflected in four key constituents which define this experience as a whole:
Letting it go: Confronting established beliefs about language learning;
Trapped in the content: Losing the sense of curricular freedom;
The taming of content: Identifying and aligning content and language; and
Reinventing one’s practice: Moving away from the instructional safety zone.
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
Letting it go“…[the curriculum] is structured in a way that you have to do A before you do B and C. That means that, if you wanted to embed a CBI unit into this, you would need to connect it to all of this, the grammatical forms especially because it’s a sequence….You have to know that this is the present tense before you do the past, and so on. If I were to use [a CBI unit] I would have to create the chapter and [write the curriculum]…can you imagine? [P#1 –INT#1]” (Cammarata, 2010, pp. 99-100)
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
Trapped in the content“Content-based, like I said, is different in a sense that I feel like I’m trapped in the content, really. I feel that the content traps me… Getting back to my unit, I felt like I was trapped in the art of the [target culture] for the week without being able to expand on something else. And I didn’t want to spend that much time on it.[P#1 – INT#2]” (Cammarata, 2010, p. 101)
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
The taming of content“It’s hard to put language in there for real beginners because certain content like cultural stereotypes is very complex and very abstract… even though I want my students to learn about that content because I think it engages them, I also want them to use the language so I end up doing these sort of weird translations for them…You know there were things that would teach way too much specialized knowledge that was just inappropriate for the kids to learn [P#2 – INT#1]”(Cammarata, 2010, p. 102)
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
Reinventing one’s practice“…[With CBI] it was really different from what I had done before. I really had to think through what I would be doing. I really had to sort of research and understand what [the content was about] and where to go with it with my students…it was much harder to write. [P#4 – INT#1]” (Cammarata, 2010, p. 103)
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
Constituents: The Immersion Study Immersion teachers’ experience of balancing content and
language in instruction is reflected in five key constituents which define this experience as a whole:
Identity transformation;
Under pressure: Facing external challenges;
On my own: A growing sense of isolation;
Awakening: An increased awareness of the interdependence of content and language;
A stab in the dark: An ongoing difficulty identifying what language to focus on in the context of content instruction.
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
Identity Transformation“It was helpful just to see myself more as a language [teacher]…besides an elementary teacher, that we’re teaching language through content, but it still is a type of language teaching. And just being acquainted and having to work with those language standards … it broadened my view of myself as a teacher.” (Tchr A, Int #2, p. 4)
“…I really think…being an immersion teacher is saying: ‘Yeah, I’m a content teacher and I’m a language teacher and I need to integrate those two to be effective’.” (Tchr C, Int #1, p. 57)
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
External challenges The other part of it is there’s a lot of pressure from the district to
make sure that students…are getting good instruction in math….and so you just gotta keep going forward, forward, forward, and you don’t have any extra time (Tchr B, Int. #2, p. 4)
It’s that extra, extra step, sometimes being an immersion teacher figuring all that you have to translate or that there are materials you can use with this [because there are no materials designed for us]. (Tchr A, Int. #1, p. 6)
[US history] content is so demanding and so full of expectations that I felt a lot of pressure to not take off my content hat long enough to pay any attention to language in a meaningful way that I was always kind of out of breath just trying to keep up with the content expectations (Tchr C, Int. #1, p. 63)
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
On my own I find lots of times that if I want to get rid of that feeling like
I’m an island, I’m the one who needs to go to my English-speaking math teachers. They’re not gonna come to talk to me about it or anything. And they don’t need to; they just keep turning the pages [of their provided curriculum]. They don’t think … honestly, they are not thinking at all about how I can incorporate language into my lesson. Not at all. (Tchr B, Int. #2, p. 32)
I’m sort of on my own, like a single candle kind of thing that’s blowing in the wind, that might go out… (Tchr C, Int. #2, p. 8)
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
Awakening I have an advanced math class as well…some of them are just
so struggling, if I go any faster they won’t get the concepts at all. I don’t know how much of the French is getting in the way, I don’t know how much is just…I don’t know. …it’s very frustrating because they don’t keep up with the rhythm that I should be going at. So to even think about language on top of that, you know…I would just be really grateful if they could retain the concepts. (Tchr B, Int. #2, p. 6)
I mean [this content] was something that they were really familiar with, I felt, to get at this higher level questioning idea. Was it conceptual? Was it language? Was it both? I think it was probably both, to be fair. But I think that the language part was holding them back from being able to do it in Spanish conceptually. (Tchr C, Int. #1, p. 17, emphasis added)
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
Awakening (Cont.)
I see more clearly now … the need for this other kind of melding of content and language for the benefit of the kids…. My awakening was starting to happen before [the PD program], but I really felt I got it at that point professionally. (Tchr C, Int#1, p. 29)
Perhaps my biggest reflection is that it is easy to focus on only content or only language, but it is a real challenge to effectively intertwine the two and do both well at the same time. (Tchr C, LED)
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
A stab in the dark There seem to be so many loose ends that I am not quite
sure where to begin…. I do not really know what exactly I am supposed to be focusing on in terms of language. (Tchr B, LED)
…focusing in and deciding what aspects to focus on and then also deciding what specific language pieces--how to make the language more central, I think that was hard… I think just because I hadn’t had a lot of experience with pulling out, “Ok, what are the specific language skills that I can teach from this book or with this activity? What would be the language skills that they would need to know? (Tchr A, Int#1, p. 28)
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
A stab in the dark (Cont.)
Looking at a lesson and saying “what is the language…that they have to know here, the content obligatory language? And based on how I am going to conduct my lesson, what is the kind of language that they are going to need to use that would be compatible? and oh, and then what’s my objective for the content?”….[is] the language that I am picking out …the same as my colleagues’ down the hall?...That was a big struggle and so I would just arbitrarily say “…I think they should practice this particular structure” but that was a stab in the dark… (Tchr B, Int#1, p. 25)
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
Synthesis of the findings
Cammarata & Tedick (in press) Important issues highlighted:- Identity issues;- External challenges issues;- Isolation issues;- Ongoing difficulty identifying what language to focus on in the context of content instruction.Major impact identified:- Increased awareness of the interdependence of content and language.
Cammarata (2010)Important issues highlighted:- Feeling of a loss of a sense of curricular freedom;- Difficulties in identifying and aligning content and language; - Issues related to the need for Ts to reinvent their practice to accommodate CBI principles.Major impact identified:- Confrontation with established beliefs about language learning.
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
Generic teacher education programs (elementary education, secondary subject matter content) for immersion teaches are inadequate (Fortune, Tedick, & Walker, 2008; Snow, 1990). They reinforce immersion teachers’ view of themselves as content teachers alone.
Traditional teacher education programs for FL teachers are inadequate (Tedick & Walker, 1994). They reinforce FL teachers’ view of themselves as language teachers alone.
Current teacher education programs are inadequate
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
acknowledges the complexity of CBI;
helps FL teachers see themselves as content teachers (as well as language teachers);
helps immersion teachers see themselves as language teachers (as well as content teachers).
Teacher educators should adopt a stance that…
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
A web-based repository of well-designed units/lessons; Video clips of effective immersion teachers in action; Published materials that can prepare teachers to implement the approach
within their specific instructional contexts, and textbook series that balance language and content.
Curricular frameworks that provide language scope/sequence linked to content outcomes; high language benchmarks; assessments (e.g., Oregon Chinese Flagship)
More resources are needed
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
provide ongoing PD support to meet the complex task of concurrently addressing content and language development (Fortune, Tedick, & Walker, 2008; Met & Lorenz, 1997; Walker & Tedick, 2000).
provide awareness-raising activities that guide teachers to develop an awareness and understanding of the interdependence of language and content (Hoare, in press; Kong, 2009).
focus on strategies to help teachers to find the language, know when and how to focus in on it during instruction and how to follow-up on it in assessment.
Teacher education & PD programs must be re-thought/designed to…
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
embed strategies for form-focused instruction in the context of the meaning-driven CBI classroom.
attend to both “proactive” and “reactive” approaches to form-focused instruction in CBI classrooms (Lyster, 2007).
aid teachers in understanding how to provide explicit instruction (involving rule explanation) within the context of meaning-based instruction when students are developmentally ready for it.
engage teachers/interns in confronting their beliefs regarding the teaching and learning of foreign languages or regarding immersion teaching.
Teacher education & PD programs must be re-thought/designed to…
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
What does the FL field really want? Does the immersion field really want to maximize language learning?
If CBI is ever to be implemented in a serious way within traditional FL contexts, what policy changes need to occur and what curricular resources need to be made available?
How do assessment and policy need to change for FL contexts if content and language integration is to be achieved?
How do assessment and policy need to change for immersion contexts if the language learning potential is to be realized?
Concluding Questions
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
Thank you for having joined us today!
Send questions & comments to:
Diane J. Tedick: [email protected] Cammarata: [email protected]
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
PPT/Handout available at:http://el-c.wikispaces.com
References
Cammarata, L. (2010). Foreign Language Teachers’ Struggle to Learn Content-Based Instruction. L2 Journal, 2(1). Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8g91w2r7
Cammarata, L. & Tedick, D. J. (in press). Balancing Content and Language in Instruction: The Experience of Immersion Teachers. Modern Language Journal.
Dahlberg, K., Dahberg, N., & Nyström, M. (2008). Reflective lifeworldresearch. Sweden: Studentlitteratur.
Fortune, T. W., Tedick, D. J. & Walker, C. (2008). Integrated language and content teaching: Insights from immersion teachers. In T. W. Fortune & D. J. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. 71-96). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.
Giorgi, A. (1997). The theory, practice, and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a qualitative research procedure. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 28(2), 235-260.
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
References Hoare, P. (in press). Context and constraints: Immersion in Hong Kong
and Mainland China. In D.J. Tedick, D. Christian & T.W. Fortune (Eds.), Immersion education: Practices, Policies, Possibilities. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Met, M. (1999). Content-based instruction: Defining terms, making decisions. The National Foreign Language Center, Washington, D.C. Retrieved Mar. 16, 2009 at: http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/modules/index.html?principles/main.html
Met, M. & Lorenz, E. (1997). Lessons from U.S. immersion programs: Two decades of experience. In R. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 243-264). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta
References Polkinghorne, D. E. (1989). Phenomenological research methods. In R. S.
Valle & S. Halling (Eds.), Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology (pp. 3-16). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Snow, M. (1990). Instructional methodology in immersion foreign language education. In A. Padilla, H. Fairchild, & C. Valadez (Eds.), Foreign language education: Issues and strategies (pp. 156-171). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Tedick, D.J. & Walker, C.L. (1994). Second language teacher education: The problems that plague us. Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 300-312.
Walker, C.L. & Tedick, D.J. (2000). The complexity of immersion education: Teachers address the issues. Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 5-27.
© Diane J. Tedick, University of Minnesota & Laurent Cammarata, University of Alberta