TESOL Quarterly · 2004 · 338 citations · 21 references
EducationInstructionTeachingLanguage EducationLanguage PedagogyPedagogyAcademic Language DevelopmentContent-based Language InstructionEnglish Language LearningEnglish Language TeachingLanguage LearningVocabulary InstructionAcademic Language InstructionEnglish Language Learner InstructionEnglish Language LearnersEnglish Learner InstructionGrade Level
Content‑based instruction has guided teaching of English language learners, yet its emphasis has largely been on vocabulary, graphic organizers, and cooperative learning, leaving the role of language in knowledge construction underexplored. The study aims to enhance content‑based instruction by integrating activities that emphasize language’s role in knowledge construction. The authors developed strategies that identify textbook challenges and employ functional linguistic analysis to deconstruct history texts, allowing teachers and students to build academic language through meaning‑making. The project demonstrated that incorporating language‑focused activities strengthens content‑based instruction for English language learners.
In K-12 contexts, the teaching of English language learners (ELLs) has been greatly influenced by the theory and practice of content-based instruction (CBI). A focus on content can help students achieve grade-level standards in school subjects while they develop English proficiency, but CBI practices have focused primarily on vocabulary and the use of graphic organizers along with cooperative learning activities. This article reports the results of a project intended to enhance CBI through activities that focus on the role of language in constructing knowledge. The strategies we present are based on identification and analysis of the challenges presented by grade-level textbooks in middle school history classrooms. By engaging in functional linguistic analysis, ELLs and their teachers can deconstruct the language of their textbooks, enabling students to develop academic language by focusing on the meaning-making potential of the historian's language choices.
21