Learners need to cope with both these difficult and easy tasks, as .... highly educated: 7 out of 10 (17.7%) held master's degrees, while 27.3% held doctorates.
This document is downoalded from Gigapaper.net Gigapaper is a free forum to supply your research needs. Join us.
System, Vol. 22, No. 2. pp. 257-268. 1994 Copyright 0 1994 Elwier ScienceLtd Printed in Great Britain. All rights rewed 0346-251X/94 $7.00 + 0.00
Pergamon 0346-251X(!ht)EOO16-X
INTEGRATING REBECCA
THE LANGUAGE
SKILLS*
L. OXFORD,? DAVID C. LEE,2 M. ANN ROBIN C. SCARCELLA”
SNOW5
and
t University of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa, AL, USA; SHeinle & Heinle, Boston, MA, USA; Walifornia State University at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA; and IiUniversity of California at Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA This article discusses the integration of language skills in an international perspective. It starts with definitions of key terms, moves to an explanation of students’ academic and social language needs, presents results of a new survey on integrated skills, and finally describes five different types of instructional designs (special-purpose, theme-based, task-based, adjunct, and sheltered) that integrate the language skills.
INTRODUCTION Language skill integration is a popular concept these days throughout the world. It involves linking the four language skills of listening, reading, speaking, and writing with the intent of emphasizing real, meaningful communication. It also involves integrating supportive skills such as grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary development, as well as the general area of culture, which is inextricable from language. How is this integrative feat accomplished? Probably the most frequent mode of language skill integration is known as content-based language instruction. The main goal is communicative competence in the target language (the language being learned), and a secondary goal is content knowledge, such as mathematics, sociology, or science (Brinton et al., 1989; Cantoni-Harvey, 1987; Mohan, 1986, 1990; Richards and Hurley, 1990; Scarcella and Oxford, 1992; Secada and Carey, 1990; Short et al., 1989; Snow et al., 1989; Spanos, 1989). In this article, we explain the expansion of the movement toward integrating the language skills. This movement is centered in Canada, the US, and the UK, but it has tentacles circling the globe. This article is organized as follows. First, we analyze students’ language needs and show how these are handled by an integrated-skills approach. Second, we describe a new survey on language skill integration and provide the results. Third, we explain five different modes of skill integration. Finally, we offer a brief summary. *Parts of this article have been presented in an earlier discussion in TESL Cmmfu Joumul (by the first author). 257
of content-based
instruction
for tertiary
students
This document is downoalded from Gigapaper.net Gigapaper is a free forum to supply your research needs. Join us.
258
REBECCA
L. OXFORD
et al.
The focus throughout this article is chiefly on second language learning, that is, the learning of the target language by a non-native speaker in a setting in which that language is the main medium of communication and in which many target-language resources exist (example: learning English in the UK or French in France). This is different from foreign language learning, which involves the learning of the target language by a non-native speaker in a setting in which that language is not the major vehicle of communication and in which fewer target-language resources exist (example: learning German in Swaziland or Russian in a rural part of the US). However, many of the points made here about the integration of language skills can apply to the foreign language environment as well.
NEEDS OF LANGUAGE
STUDENTS
Social vs academic language needs Students have social language needs and academic language needs, according to several researchers. For instance, Collier (1989) recommends that integrated-skills academic instruction should occur while language students are mastering basic, social language skills. Likewise, Cummins (1979, 1981) made significant distinctions between basic interpersonal communication skills (or social language) and cognitive academic language proficiency (or academic language). The language used for academic tasks is often very different from the language used for basic social exchanges (Cummins, 1981,1984). Language proficiency, according to Cummins (1984), can be envisioned along two dimensions: (a) cognitive difficulty of the task, and (b) amount of context in which language occurs. Difficulty of the task ranges from cognitively undemanding, as in learning definitions and reading road signs, to cognitively demanding, as in making an oral presentation on an academic or technical topic. Context for language can be very rich (what Cummins calls “embedded”), that is, stuffed with linguistic or extralinguistic clues (situational noise, gestures, social status of interlocutors) to the meaning. Alternatively, context can be “reduced”, that is, missing such additional clues to meaning. Compared with basic interpersonal communication tasks, cognitive academic tasks are often more intellectually demanding and more context-reduced, with meaning typically inferred from linguistic or literacy-related features of a relatively formal written or oral text. This is the most difficult situation for language learners, and competence in these types of tasks frequently occurs later than competence in basic interpersonal communication tasks. Many basic interpersonal communication tasks are cognitively less demanding and more contextembedded, with plenty of situational clues to the meaning. This is the easiest circumstance for language learners, and competence in these kinds of tasks occurs earlier than competence in many cognitive academic tasks. Learners need to cope with both these difficult and easy tasks, as well as the ones in between (tasks that are cognitively demanding and contextembedded, and tasks that are cognitively undemanding and context-reduced). Order of development Academic language is thus much more difficult than social language and is later in developing to proficiency. Canadian research indicates that language learners can develop
This document is downoalded from Gigapaper.net Gigapaper is a free forum to supply your research needs. Join us.
INTEGRATING
THE LANGUAGE
259
SKILLS
proficiency in social language within 2 years (Cummins, 1982), while success with academic language at the level of native speakers ordinarily takes 5-7 years [see King et al. (1987) for additional comments]. Therefore, a given student might be more advanced in social aspects of the language and less advanced in academic aspects. Whether there is a major time lag is partly dependent on how well students have already developed academic language ability in their own native language. Cummins (1979) theorizes that it is especially important to achieve some level of capability in academic communication in the person’s native language first. Once a certain minimal academic language proficiency threshold has been reached in the first language, this can easily be transferred to a second language. Cummins warns that if the threshold has not been reached in the first language, i.e. if students are mainstreamed too soon into regular academic classes in the target language without any assistance, it is difficult or impossible to develop academic language ability through the second language. Put differently, if the student cannot use words, phrases, and concepts for academic purposes in the first language, he or she will not be able to do it in the target language either. Surveys of academic language needs Numerous investigations have been conducted that provide clear delineation of the types of language skills required for second language students to succeed academically [e.g. Kroll (1979), Ostler (1980), Johns (1981), Bridgeman and Carlson (1983), Santos (1988), and Spack (1988)]. With reference to the learning of English as a second language (ESL) by non-native speakers, Snow and Brinton (1991) state that: (a) an academic English program should emphasize all the skill areas, including listening and speaking, and not just writing, which has tended to receive the most attention; and (b) students require experience with “academic information processing,” i.e. understanding real content presented in a conventional academic context. “Academic information processing” can include any of the higher-level thinking abilities noted by Bloom in his taxonomy of cognitive processes: application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. [These four levels are known by Chamot (1983) as academic proficiency, while the lower two levels, recall/recognition and comprehension, she calls social proficiency.] Unfortunately, many academic situations involve only the lower-level thinking elements that appear at the bottom of the taxonomy. Language ability and thinking ability can be developed simultaneously through integrated-skills instruction [see O’Malley and Chamot (1991)].
A NEW SURVEY CONCERNING
THE INTEGRATION
OF LANGUAGE
SKILLS
We recently conducted a survey whose goal was to determine the degree to which language programs use an integrated-skills emphasis, as opposed to separating the skills into different courses. The specific focus was on tertiary (or postsecondary, i.e. college, university, trade/vocational school, or adult school) second language programs for non-native speakers of English. We narrowed our survey to the US, although similar findings are likely to appear in other countries as well.
This document is downoalded from Gigapaper.net Gigapaper is a free forum to supply your research needs. Join us. 260
REBECCA L. OXFORD et al.
Using the annual Institute of International Education survey of English programs as a base, we targeted the intensive programs in which students studied regularly, usually every day. We eliminated new, start-up programs that had not had a chance to stabilize their instructional philosophy, as well as programs that shut down for the summer. This resulted in a pool of 173 programs. In midsummer, printed questionnaires were developed and field tested. These questionnaires included items such as respondent’s position, the number and percentage of students at each level, the kinds of courses offered, and the comparative focus on integrated skills vs discrete skills. The questionnaires were sent to curriculum coordinators and/or directors of the selected programs, and a phone and mail follow-up was conducted. The response rate was 72%, very high for a mail survey of this type. Survey results were tabulated to obtain item frequencies and percentages for small programs (annual enrollment below 250), medium programs (250-750), and large programs (above 750). Chi-square (x2) analyses were applied whenever relevant to determine whether the observed frequency distributions were statistically significantly different from what would be expected by chance. Most respondents (53.3Vo) were instructors with administrative duties, while 43.9% were strictly administrators and 2.8% were non-administrative instructors. Respondents were highly educated: 7 out of 10 (17.7%) held master’s degrees, while 27.3% held doctorates and only 1% had a terminal bachelor’s degree. Annual enrollment (defined as the number of total individuals who had taken classes at any time during the year, with a given student able to be counted twice if enrolled for two terms) had a mean of 590 and a median of 440. The largest group consisted of medium-sized programs (48.0%), followed by large programs (29.1%) and small programs (22.8%). Many respondents said they offered content courses in which language skills were integrated. The most commonly offered course of this type was culture, offered by 55.1% of the programs; this was followed by business, 54.3%; current events, 45.7%; literature, 44.1%, computer science, 28.3%; and science/technology, 18.9%. Large programs were the most likely to offer content courses, followed by small and medium programs (x2= 14.92, p < 0.005). However, most programs still offered courses in separated language skills, such as grammar. (All sizes of programs provided such courses, with no statistically significant difference evident by program size). For example, 92.9010of the programs indicated that they offered courses on reading, 92.1% on writing, 89.8% on grammar, 87.4% on speaking, 85.8% on listening, 65.4% on pronunciation, 47.2% on vocabulary and 23.6% on other skills, such as conversation, accent reduction, test taking, and so on. In probing further, the survey found that the integration of language skills was very common, even though single-skill courses were still being taught. Usually skill integration occurred with two or perhaps three skills at a time, rather than all language skills at once. The most common combination of skills was reading and writing, listed by 49.6% of the respondents. This was followed by other combinations: listening and speaking (39.4%); listening, speaking, and grammar (29.1 Vo); writing and grammar (19.7%); and reading and grammar (1.6%). Only 7.9% of the programs said they had total integration of all four language skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening) plus grammar, 3.9% said they integrated
This document is downoalded from Gigapaper.net Gigapaper is a free forum to supply your research needs. Join us. INTEGRATING THE LANGUAGE SKILLS
261
the four skills but kept grammar separate. (Note that respondents were allowed to select various combinations that their programs use, so results exceed lOO%.) Small programs were somewhat more likely than medium programs and much more likely than large programs to integrate listening and speaking (x2=20.28, p c 0.005). Large programs were more likely to combine listening, speaking, and grammar than were medium and small programs (x2 = 22.53, p < 0.005). No real program size differences occurred for other combinations of skills. Strikingly, 11% of the respondents said their programs did no skill integration whatsoever. This probably meant that they did not offer courses with double- or triple-skill names, but it might not be an indication of whether integration actually occurs within a course called “Reading” or a course called “Speaking”. Half (49.8%) the respondents saw their programs moving toward greater integration of language skills, 16.5% toward greater isolation of skills into separate courses, and 33.9% toward mixed situations (such as skill integration within ostensibly single-skill courses, skill integration at lower but not higher levels, and so forth) (x2 = 16.47, p < 0.005). Small and medium programs were distinctly more likely to be headed in the direction of skill integration than large programs, with percentages of 55.2, 57.3, and 25.9070, respectively (x2= 13.15, p < 0.005). This could be because many large programs already offer integrated-skill content courses, as mentioned earlier. The direction in which a given program was moving might not have been the direction the respondent preferred. Over half the respondents (55.1%) said they would like their programs to move toward greater integration of skills. This included 60.2% of small programs, 60.6% of medium programs, and 29.4% of large programs (x2= 13.01, p < 0.005). Only 11% of the respondents said they wanted their programs to head toward greater separation of the language skills (no significant differences evident here in program size). Respondents said that skill integration at all levels was rather important (3.4-3.5 on a fivepoint scale, depending on the language level) in the language textbooks they chose. Among other important textbook characteristics strongly desired by respondents were academic content and content-based instruction at the advanced level, authentic language and cultural instruction at all levels, and task-based instruction at beginning and intermediate levels; most of these desires involve some degree (or a great degree) of skill integration. Taken together, the results of this survey show that most of the second language programs we examined wanted to integrate the language skills, were already involved in doing so, and were moving more and more in that direction. Nevertheless, many of these programs still offer segregated-skill courses such as “Speaking”, but even within such courses there frequently appeared to be some integration of skills. Skill integration was mainly occurring with two skills at a time, rather than with all four. INSTRUCTIONAL
DESIGNS FOR LANGUAGE
SKILL INTEGRATION
Five designs related to language skill integration are explained here. Two of these (themeand task-based) are actually used at many educational levels, but the other three were
This document is downoalded from Gigapaper.net Gigapaper is a free forum to supply your research needs. Join us. 262
REBECCA
L. OXFORD
et al.
developed primarily for university students. All can be called content-based, because they involve content (subject matter) knowledge development as a key element, even though language learning is the main goal. These five include: language for specific purposes (LSP), in which the language skills are integrated for the purpose of learning the target language, to be used in particular situations for specific needs [e.g. language for academic purposes, language for science and technology; see Hutchinson and Waters (1987) and Swales (1985)]; theme-based language instruction, in which the language skills are integrated in the study of a theme, e.g. global warming (Brinton et al., 1989); task-based language instruction, in which language skills are integrated through meaningful language tasks that can be, but are not necessarily, related to a specific body of content (Scarcella and Oxford, 1992); adjunct language instruction, in which separate language and content courses are linked through the coordination of the instructors and the curricula (Snow and Brinton, 1988); and sheltered language instruction, in which learners are taught the subject matter and the language using simplified language that is modified to the students’ level of proficiency (Edwards et al., 1984). These are not all equivalent in scope, generality, or intent. Some are specific methods (e.g. sheltered and adjunct language instruction), while others are broader approaches (such as LSP, task-based language instruction, and theme-based language instruction) [see Richards and Rodgers (1986) for the differences between general approaches and specific methods]. LSP LSP is one of the most significant movements in language teaching today. It is regularly used in many countries by industrial and businesses, hospitals, universities, and vocational/technical schools. LSP involves selected language material for specific environments and purposes: medicine, engineering, commerce, hotel management, science, and so on. According to Hutchinson and Waters (1987), LSP is not just a matter of teaching specialized varieties of the target language. Commonalities are greater than differences across LSP courses, although certain features of the language are typical of a given context or field. No single LSP methodology exists; LSP is a general approach. In the LSP perspective, the language teacher does not need to master the subject matter but should accept the status of an interested co-student of the subject matter. LSP teachers should let students know initially that they (the teachers) are not experts in the subject area. Brinton et al. (1989) suggest that LSP is possible only when the characteristics, needs, and purposes of a group of students are relatively homogeneous. The unifying nature is that the objectives and language content of each course are defined according to the learners’ functional requirements in the new language in a specific situation. Context is often embedded because
This document is downoalded from Gigapaper.net Gigapaper is a free forum to supply your research needs. Join us. INTEGRATING
THE LANGUAGE
SKILLS
263
of similar backgrounds and needs of participants; however, if a person from a different environment or set of interests became involved, the context for that person would naturally be reduced. LSP is similar to reading in the content areas and the historical development of LSP has paralleled that of cross-content reading skills (Mohan, 1986). Since its inception in the late 1960s in England and its expansion in the Middle East in the 197Os, LSP has been a contentfocused instructional tool for highly motivated adults. Now many countries throughout the world have programs in LSP. As LSP developed, its emphasis rapidly became fixed on the content material and then on the content learning task (e.g. description, generalization, classification, hypothesis creation), transferrable to other content areas. Language for science and technology (LST) was the first area of LSP to be developed, and LST and LSP were for a time treated as synonyms. Later came language for business and economics, and language for social sciences. Each of these can be divided into two branches: academic and occupational/vocational (Hutchinson and Waters, 1987). Theme-based language instruction The approach known as theme-based language instruction integrates the language skills through the study of a particular aspect of content known as a “theme,” such as the environment, careers, foods, or family customs. Sometimes a course covers just one major theme, but at other times a course includes up to a dozen different themes. Theme-based instruction is widespread in the second language field and is moving into a variety of foreign languages, such as Spanish and French for native English speakers. According to Brinton et al. (1989), theme-based instruction is useful at all ages and all proficiency levels, but it lends itself especially well to heterogeneous groups of adult learners who share some common areas of interest. Educational and cultural background is important in selecting the themes. Theme-based instruction can be context-embedded because of the richness of thematic clues to meaning. Brinton et al. (1989) note many studies of language programs using theme-based instruction. For instance, Reid (1984) described theme-based courses at the WESL Institute of Western Illinois University in the US. Topics ranged widely from genetic engineering to Native American culture. Fein and Baldwin (1986) discussed the theme-based, integrated-skill curriculum for advanced students in the daytime intensive ESL program of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) American Language Center. Eskey et al. (1984) described theme-based ESL courses at the University of Southern California, noting success in fluency development but heavy burdens on teachers for materials and curriculum development. Other theme-based language programs cited by Brinton et al. (1989) include the Monterey Institute, the University of Nevada at Reno, Southern Illinois University, Carleton University, and the Free University of Berlin. Two additional studies of theme-based programs should be mentioned here. Even though they are not second language programs, they have some relevance. In the first study, Lafayette and Buscaglia (1985) report on a study of a fourth-semester theme-based course in French civilization which was conducted in French at Indiana University in the US. Comparison with students enrolled in a regular fourth-semester section revealed that the students in the skill-integrated, theme-based course made significant gains in listening,
This document is downoalded from Gigapaper.net Gigapaper is a free forum to supply your research needs. Join us. 264
REBECCA
L. OXFORD
et al.
speaking, and writing, and in attitudes toward the study of French; students in the traditional course made significant gains in listening and writing. In the second study, Giauque (1987) described a theme-based French course in Greek mythology for third-year university students at Northern Arizona University in the US. In this course, students read authentic texts, listened to lectures and took notes in French, participated in discussions, and wrote papers and exams in French, and they were rewarded with general education credit in the humanities and in the language. Task-based language instruction A third approach for uniting the language skills is task-based language instruction. This is an integrated approach to language program design (Long, 1985) which focuses on “tasks,” or the kinds of communicative events in which people engage in everyday life. These tasks require comprehending, producing, manipulating, or interacting in authentic language while attention is principally oriented to meaning rather than form (Nunan, 1989). Basic pair work and group work (Gaies, 1985; Doughty and Pica, 1986) and more structured cooperative learning formats (Johnson et al., 1986; Slavin, 1981, 1983, 1989-1990) are often used in task-based instruction. Task-based instruction, based on earlier concepts of Allwright and Prabhu, engages and involves learners personally in negotiating for meaning (Long and Porter, 1985; Kumaravadivelu, 1991). Context is frequently embedded because tasks give many clues to meaning. Task-based instruction can be used at all age levels, not just with adults, and at all proficiency levels. Task-based instruction is usually presented in one of two modes: through one- or two-way tasks (Doughty and Pica, 1986). One-way tasks are those in which one person, the teacher or a single student, has information and shares it with other members of the class; but sometimes only the more confident, more linguistically competent student dominates the conversation. Two-way tasks-we might more accurately call them multiway tasks-require the exchange of information among all participants, each of whom has some information not known but clearly needed by all the other participants to solve a problem. Two-way tasks tend to generate real communication by students of all proficiency levels. Content in task-based instruction may be highly academic (as in a thematic, taskbased unit on political structures), but it could just as easily be nontraditional [see Talbott and Oxford (1990)]. Adjunct language instruction Adjunct language instruction is a specific instructional method focusing on linking instructors and curricula for language and content courses. For example, the language instructor might work closely with the psychology or biology instructor in providing language and content instruction in a way that optimizes learning in both areas simultaneously. The adjunct model differs from the theme-based model and the sheltered model in requiring participation of a mix of native and non-native speakers in the content component (Brinton et al., 1989). Native speakers of the language do not need to participate in the language component with the non-native speakers. Moreover, adjunct instruction is most appropriate for adults with academic or vocational goals (though other ages could participate if programs were arranged for them) whose proficiency level is high intermediate to advanced. No special subject matter knowledge is assumed for the students. Often the context is reduced in adjunct instruction due to the academic level and the subject area.
This document is downoalded from Gigapaper.net Gigapaper is a free forum to supply your research needs. Join us. INTEGRATING THE LANGUAGE SKILLS
265
Snow and Brinton (1988) compared UCLA students using the adjunct model with a comparison group of students enrolled in a more traditional segregated-skill ESL program. Students in the adjunct class at the beginning had significantly lower ESL placement scores than the comparison group. Nevertheless, these students did as well at the comparison group on a content-based examination which required them to listen to a lecture and read an excerpt from a political science text, and then to use this information to complete shortanswer questions and write an essay. The fact that the initially-lower adjunct students did as well as the end as the traditional students, who at first scored higher, suggests that the adjunct students made greater gains overall. Snow and Brinton attribute their findings to the content-based language class, which exposed students to integrated language skills and to the types of academic tasks required for university study. In other words, the students in the adjunct class used the language in a normal, academic way, just as they would be expected to do in any university situation, while the comparison group used the language in a more artificial manner. Brinton et al. (1989) also note that the adjunct language program had the benefit of a positive on-campus residential setting, academic and personal counseling services, forums, social programs, and tutoring services. Sheltered language instruction Sheltered language instruction is also a specific methodology as opposed to a more general approach. In sheltered language instruction, students learn the content through simplified language tailored to their language level. The sheltered model, according to Brinton et al. (1989), is appropriate for all ages and especially for intermediate-level students. These authors also state that the sheltered model should ideally be restricted to highly motivated learners pursuing academic or vocational goals related to the subject matter. In sheltered instruction, context is typically reduced due to the educational level and the subject area, although the language is simplified. Starting with a course on an introduction to psychology, the University of Ottawa has used sheltered instruction extensively with the double goal of teaching subject matter and academic language skills (in French as a second language for English speakers and English as a second language for French speakers). The sheltered model extended to other content areas besides psychology. Studies of this model at the University of Ottawa showed strong student gains in both subject matter and second language skills. These gains were equal to or better than those of comparison groups taking the course in their first language and students in regular French and ESL classes (Edwards et al., 1984; Hauptmann et al., 1988). Brinton et al. (1989) also point to evidence of program effectiveness in the very low attrition rates in the sheltered program at the University of Ottawa. We have discussed characteristics turn to the summary.
of five designs for language skill integration.
Now we
SUMMARY This article has explored some of the issues in language skill integration using an international perspective. We have seen that such integration is expanding and that it has taken hold in the UK, the US, Canada, and elsewhere. A new study reported here shows
This document is downoalded from Gigapaper.net Gigapaper is a free forum to supply your research needs. Join us.
REBECCA L. OXFORD et al.
266
that, at least in the US, most of the surveyed ESL programs were strongly going in the direction of greater skill integration. This article includes detailed descriptions of five specific instructional models that serve to integrate the language skills. Teachers’ and administrators’ understanding of language skill integration has come a long way in the last 20 years or so. Using what is now known, including information from the new survey cited here, greater progress can be made in the future. However, to be fully successful, it is necessary to evaluate integrated-skills programs carefully on both a formative and a summative basis, revise them when necessary, and clearly link them with a relevant model (or models) of second language acquisition [such as that of Cummins (1981); see also the varied models in recent books, including Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991), Labarca and Bailey (1990), Scarcella and Oxford (1992) and Van Patten and Lee (1990)]. “Theory without practice is futile, and practice without theory is fatal,” says one unnamed scholar, whose words we should definitely heed when considering the realm of integrated language skills. REFERENCES BRIDGEMAN,
S. (1983) Survey of Academic Writing Tasks Required of Graduate and Report No. 15. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
B. and CARLSON,
Undergraduate Foreign Students, TOEFL Research BRINTON,
D. M., SNOW, M. A. and WESCHE, House/Harper & Row.
M. B. (1989) Content-bused Second Language Instruction.
New York: Newbury CANTONI-HARVEY, Addison-Wesley. CHAMOT,
G. (1987) Content-area Language Instruction: Approaches and Strategies. Reading,
A. U. (1983) Toward
a functional
ESL curriculum
in the elementary
school.
MA:
TESOL Quarterly 17,
459-47 1. COLLIER,
V. (1989) How long? A synthesis
of research
on academic
achievement
in second language.
TESOL
of bilingual
Review
Quarterly 23(3), 509-531. CUMMINS,
J. (1979) Linguistic
interdependence
and the educational
development
children.
of Educational Research 49, 222-25 1. CUMMINS, J. (1981) The role of primary language in promoting educational success for language minority students. In Schooling and LanguageMinority Students: a Theoretical Framework. Los Angeles, CA: Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center. CUMMINS, Education.
J. (1982) Tests, Achievement, and Biculturul Ambivalence. Rosslyn,
CUMMINS, Multilingual
J. (1984) Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment Matters.
DOUGHTY,
C. and PICA,
T. (1986) “Information
gap”
VA: Clearinghouse
tasks: do they facilitate
on Bilingual
and Pedagogy. Clevedon:
second language
acquisition?
TESOL Quarterly 20(2), 305-324. EDWARDS, H. P., WESCHE, M. B., KRASHEN, S., CLEMENT, R., and KRUDENIER, B. (1984) Second language acquisition through subject-matter learning: a study of sheltered psychology classes at the University of Ottawa. Canadian Modern Language Review 41, 268-282. ESKEY, D., KRAFT, C. and ALVIN, M. C. (1984) Structuring a content-based syllabus. the annual meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Houston. FEIN,
D. and BALDWIN,
R. (1986) Content-based
curriculum
design in advanced
Paper
presented
at
levels of an ESL program.
English for Foreign Students in English-Speaking Countries-Interest Section Newsletter 4(l), l-3. GAIES, S. (1985) Peer Involvement in Language Learning. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. GIAUQUE, G. (1987) Teaching for content in a skills course: Greek mythology in French. Foreign Language Annals 20(6), 565-569. HAUPTMANN, matter learning:
P. C., WESCHE, M. B. and READY, P. (1988) Second language acquisition through a follow-up study at the University of Ottawa. Language Learning 38(3), 439-482.
subject
This document is downoalded from Gigapaper.net Gigapaper is a free forum to supply your research needs. Join us. INTEGRATING
261
THE LANGUAGE SKILLS
HUTCHINSON, T. and WATERS, A. (1987) English for Specific Purposes: a Learner Centred Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. JOHNS,
A. (1981) Necessary
English:
a different
TESOL Quarterly 15(l), 51-57.
story.
E. (eds) (1986) Circles of Learning: Cooperation in the
JOHNSON,
D. W., JOHNSON, R. and HOLUBEC, Classroom, (revised edition). Edina, MN: Interaction.
KING, M., FAGAN, B., BRATT, T. and BAER, R. (1987) ESL and social studies instruction. In Crandall, (ed.), ESL through Content-area Instruction, pp. 89-120. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. KROLL, 219-226.
B. (1979) A survey of the writing
KUMARAVADIVELU, Journal 45(2), 98-107. LABARCA, NJ: Ablex.
needs of foreign
B. (1991) Language
learning
and American
tasks:
teacher
ELT Journal 33(3),
college freshmen.
intention
J.
and learner
ELT
interpretation.
L. M. (eds) (1990) Issues in L2: Theory as Practice/Practice as Theory. Norwood,
A. and BAILEY,
LAFAYETTE, R. C. and BUSCAGLIA, M. (1985) Students learn language via a civilization course: a comparison of second language classroom environments. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7, 323-342. LARSEN-FREEMAN, New York: Longman.
M. (1991) An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research.
D. and LONG,
M. (1985) Input and second language acquisition theory. MA: Newbury House.
In Gass, S. and Madden,
C. (eds), Input and
M. and PORTER,
talk, and second language
acquisition.
LONG,
Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, LONG,
P. A. (1985) Group work, interlanguage
TESOL
Quarterly 13(2), 207-228. MOHAN, B. (1990) LEP students and the integration of language and content: knowledge structures and tasks. Paper presented at the National Symposium on Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students Research Issues, Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs, Washington, DC. D. (1989) Designing Tasks for the Communicative
NUNAN, Press.
S. (1980) A survey
Cambridge
University
A. U. (1991) Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:
O’MALLEY, J. M. and CHAMOT, Cambridge University Press. OSTLER,
Classroom. Cambridge:
of academic
needs for advanced
ESL.
TESOL Quarteriy 14(4), 489-502.
OXFORD, R. L. (1990) Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury House/Harper & Row (now Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle). REID, J. (1984) TTTReview: State University.
Teachers, Texts, and Technology in EFL/ESL Training. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado
RICHARDS, J. C. and HURLEY, D. (1990) Language and content: approaches to curriculum alignment. Richards, J. C. (ed.), The Language Teaching Matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
J. C. and RODGERS, T. (1986) Approaches, Methods, and Techniques in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
RICHARDS, Cambridge: SANTOS,
In
T. (1988) Professors’
reactions
to the academic
writing of nonnative-speaking
students.
TESOL Quarterly
22, 69-90. SCARCELLA,
R. C. and OXFORD,
Communicative Classroom. Boston,
R. L. (1992) The Tapestry of Language Learning: the Individual in the MA: Heinle & Heinle.
SECADA, W. G. and CAREY, D. A. (1990) Teaching students. Urban Diversity Series Number 101. SHORT,
D., CRANDALL,
J. and CHRISTIAN,
mathematics
with understanding
to limited English proficient
D. (1989) How to Integrate Languageand Content Instruction: DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
a Training Manual, ERIC No. ED 305 824. Washington, SLAVIN,
R. (1981) Synthesis
SLAVIN,
R. (1983) Cooperative Learning. New York:
of research
SLAVIN,
R. (1989-1990)
Research
on cooperative
on cooperative
learning.
Educational Leadership 655-660.
Longman.
learning:
consensus
and controversy.
Educational Leadership
47(4), 52-55. SNOW, M. A. and BRINTON, D. M. (1988) Content-based of the adjunct model. TESOL Quarterly 22, 553-574. SNOW, M. A. and BRINTON, content in language instruction. Other Languages, New York.
language
instruction:
investigating
the effectiveness
D. M. (1991) The cross-curricular revolution in EAP: recognizing the role of Paper presented at the annual meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of
This document is downoalded from Gigapaper.net Gigapaper is a free forum to supply your research needs. Join us. 268
REBECCA L. OXFORD et
al.
SNOW, M. A., MET, M. and GENESEE, F. (1989) A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language instruction. TESOL Quarterly 23, 201-217. SPACK, R. (1988) Initiating ESL students into the academic discourse community: how far should we go? TESOL Quarterly 22(l), 29-5 1. SPANOS, G. (1989) On the integration of language and content. AnnualReview of Applied Linguistics 10,227~240. SWALES, J. (1985) Episodes in ESP. Oxford: Pergamon Press. TALBOTT, V. and OXFORD, R. L. (1991) Creating a video variety show: student-generated simulations. Simulation/Games for Learning 20(4), 378-397. VAN PATTEN, B. and LEE, J. (1990) Second Language Acquisition-Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
