EFL Teachers’ Challenges to Write Content and Language Objectives for CBI Lesson Plans at a Mexican University
Keywords:CBI, lesson planning, objectives, language features, cognitive categories, Instruction, teaching guides
This study aims at documenting the challenges that three Mexican students participating in a Content-Based Instruction (CBI) module from a Master’s (MA) program in English Language Teaching (ELT) face when writing content and language objectives for CBI lessons. Through qualitative research based on a content analysis design, one lesson plan of each MA student (n=3) was analyzed using criteria proposed by well-known researchers. Results revealed that MA students wrote clear content objectives. The major challenge of content objectives was found in the observability of these objectives. Language objectives were less successful, as most of them were rated as not clear. Moreover, language objectives focused almost exclusively on language skills and grammar and language structures. Finally, the verbs used in the language objectives demanded a low-order cognitive category from students. Despite being EFL trained teachers, these MA students had more challenges in writing language objectives than content objectives. Thus, material, examples, and directions provided to students should explicitly draw students’ attention to the most common challenges to help overcome them.
Airey, J. (2012). “I don’t teach language”: The linguistic attitudes of physics lectures in Sweden. AILA Review, 25(2012), 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.25.05air
Anderson, L., Krathwohl, D., Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Arias, A., & Izquierdo, J. (2015). Language attention in content-based instruction: The case of language instructors teaching content in a foreign language in Mexican higher education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 3(2), 194–217. http://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.3.2.02ari
Arias, A., Domínguez, G., & Morales, E. (2019). Form-focused instruction (FFI) and language features attended to during content-based instruction (CBI) lessons at a southeastern Mexican university. Actualidades Investigativas en Educación, 19(1),1–28. https://doi.org/10.15517/aie.v19i1.34785
Arnó-Macià, E., & Mancho-Barés, G. (2015). The role of content and language in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at university: Challenges and implications for ESP. English for Specific Purposes, 37(2015), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.007
Asociación Nacional de Universidades e Instituciones de Educación Superior (ANUIES). (2017–2018). Catálogo de carreras de licenciatura y posgrado. https://www.anuies.mx/iinformacion-y-servicios/informacion-estadistica-de-educacion-superior/anuario-estadistico-de-educacion-superior
Baecher, L., Farnsworth, T., & Ediger, A. (2014). The challenges of planning language objectives in content-based ESL instruction. Language Teaching Research, 18(I), 118–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813505381
Banegas, D. L. (2015). Sharing views of CLIL lesson planning in language teacher education. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 8(2), 104–130. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2015.8.2.3
Bigelow, M., Ranney, S., & Dahlman, A. (2006). Keeping the language focus in content-based ESL instruction through proactive curriculum planning. TESL Canada Journal, 24(1), 40–58. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v24i1.27
Brinton, D., Snow, M., & Wesche, M. (2003). Content-based second language instruction. The University of Michigan Press.
Burger, S., & Chrétien, M. (2001). The development of oral production in content-based second language courses at the university of Ottawa. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(1), 84–102. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.58.1.84
Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. Modern Language Journal, 96(ii), 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01330.x
Collins, J. W., & O’Brien, N. P. (2003). The Greenwood dictionary of education. Greenwood publishing group.
Corrales, K., & Maloof, C. (2009). Evaluating the effects of CBI on an English for medical students program. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 2(1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2009.2.1.3
Costa, F. (2012). Focus on form in ICLHE lectures in Italy. AILA Review, 25(2012), 30–47. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.25.03cos
Creese, A. (2010). Content focused classrooms and learning English: How teachers collaborate. Theory into practice, 49, 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841003626494
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe. In W. Delanoy & I. Volkmann (Eds.), Future perspectives for English language teaching. Anglistische Forschunge (Vol. 388, pp. 139–157). Winter.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (2010). Making content comprehensible for secondary English learners the SIOP model. Pearson Education.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus-on-form. System, 30(2002), 419–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00047-7
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage Publications.
Lara, R., Richter, G., Razo, L. O., & Gonzalez, L. D. (2016). Mexican teachers’ perceptions of teaching English through content-based instruction in the state of Guanajuato Mexico: A dual perspective. Entreciencias: diálogos en la sociedad del conocimiento, 4(9), 97–108. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=457645340008
Lightbown, P. M. (2007). Fair trade: Two-way bilingual education. Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada, 7, 9–34. http://revistas.uned.es/index.php/ELIA/article/view/18087/
Lindseth, M. (2016). The effects of form-focused instruction on the acquisition of subject-verb inversion in German. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12174
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. SSLA, 27, 361–386. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050163
Lyster, R., & Ballinger, S. (2011). Content-based language teaching: Convergent concerns across divergent contexts. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811401150
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060128
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. John Benjamins.
Marzban, A., & Mokhberi, M. (2012). The effect of focus on form instruction on intermediate EFL learners’ grammar learning in task-based language teaching. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46(2012), 5340–5344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.435
Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinates, A., & Lorenzo, F. (2016). More than content and language: The complexity of integration in CLIL and multilingual education. In Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P. & Smit, U. (Ed.). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 1–25). Multilingual matters.
Rodgers, D. (2015). Incidental language learning in foreign language content courses. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 113–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12194
Schleppegrell, M., Achugar, M., & Orteíza, T. (2004). The grammar of history: Enhancing content-based instruction through a functional focus on language. TESOL Quarterly, 38(1), 67–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588259
Sepešiová, M. (2015). CLIL lesson planning. In Pokrivcáková et al. (Ed.), CLIL in foreign language education: E-textbook for foreign language teachers
(pp. 131–152). https://doi.org/10.17846/CLIL.2015.131-152
Short, D. J. (2017). How to integrate content and language learning effectively for English language learning. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(7b), 4237–4260. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00806a
Spada, N., Jessop, L., Tomita, Y., Suzuki, W., & Valeo, A. (2014). Isolated and integrated form-focused instruction: Effects on different types of L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 453–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813519883
Swain, M. (1996). Integrating language and content in immersion classrooms: Research perspectives. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 52, 529–548. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.52.4.529
Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco. (2007). Plan de estudios de la maestría en la enseñanza del idioma inglés. Villahermosa, Mexico.
Unterberger, B. (2012). English-medium programmes at Austrian business faculty. A status quo survey on national trends and a case study on programme design and delivery. AILA Review, 25(2012), 80–100. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.25.06unt
Zyzik, E. & Polio, C. (2008). Incidental focus on form in university Spanish literature courses. The Modern Language Journal, 92(i), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00686.x
Copyright (c) 2020 Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
This journal and its papers are published with the Creative Commons License Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). You are free to share copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format if you: give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made; don’t use our material for commercial purposes; don’t remix, transform, or build upon the material.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).