| . |
. |
. |
|
A Means
to Promote Language Content
|
|
|
|
In recent years, increasing
numbers of language educators have turned to content-based instruction and project work to
promote meaningful student engagement with language and content learning. Through
content-based instruction, learners develop language skills while simultaneously becoming
more knowledgeable citizens of the world. By integrating project work into content- based
classrooms, educators create vibrant learning environments that require active student
involvement, stimulate higher level thinking skills, and give students responsibility for
their own learning. When incorporating project work into content-based classrooms,
instructors distance themselves from teacher- dominated instruction and move towards
creating a student community of inquiry involving authentic communication, cooperative
learning, collaboration, and problem-solving.
In this article, I shall provide a rationale for content-based instruction and demonstrate
how project work can be integrated into content-based classrooms. I will then outline the
primary characteristics of project work, introduce project work in its various
configurations, and present practical guidelines for sequencing and developing a project.
It is my hope that language teachers and teacher educators will be able to adapt the ideas
presented here to enhance their classroom instruction.
|
|
|
|
A rationale for content-based instruction
|
|
|
Content-based instruction (CBI) has been used in
a variety of language learning contexts for the last 25 years, though its popularity and
wider applicability have increased dramatically in the past 10 years. There are numerous
practical features of CBI which make it an appealing approach to language instruction:
|
|
|
In a content-based approach, the activities of
the language class are specific to the subject matter being taught, and are geared to
stimulate students to think and learn through the use of the target language. Such an
approach lends itself quite naturally to the integrated teaching of the four traditional
language skills. For example, it employs authentic reading materials which require
students not only to understand information but to interpret and evaluate it as well. It
provides a forum in which students can respond orally to reading and lecture materials. It
recognizes that academic writing follows from listening and reading, and thus requires
students to synthesize facts and ideas from multiple sources as preparation for writing.
In this approach, students are exposed to study skills and learn a variety of language
skills which prepare them for the range of academic tasks they will encounter (Brinton,
Snow, and Wesche 1989:2).
|
|
|
This quotation reflects a consistent set of
descriptions by CBI practitioners who have come to appreciate the many ways that CBI
offers ideal conditions for language learning. Research in second language acquisition
offers additional support for CBI; yet some of the most persuasive evidence stems from
research in educational and cognitive psychology, even though it is somewhat removed from
language learning contexts. Worth noting here are four findings from research in
educational and cognitive psychology that emphasize the benefits of content-based
instruction:
|
|
|
- Thematically organized materials, typical of content-based classrooms, are easier to
remember and learn (Singer 1990).
- The presentation of coherent and meaningful information, characteristic of well-
organized content-based curricula, leads to deeper processing and better learning
(Anderson 1990).
- There is a relationship between student motivation and student interest-common outcomes
of content- based classes-and a student's ability to process challenging materials, recall
information, and elaborate (Alexander, Kulikowich, and Jetton 1994).
- Expertise in a topic develops when learners reinvest their knowledge in a sequence of
progressively more complex tasks (Bereiter and Scardamalia 1993), feasible in
content-based classrooms and usually absent from more traditional language classrooms
because of the narrow focus on language rules or limited time on superficially developed
and disparate topics (e.g., a curriculum based on a short reading passage on the
skyscrapers of New York, followed by a passage on the history of bubble gum, later
followed by an essay on the volcanos of the American Northwest).
|
|
|
These empirical research findings, when combined
with the practical advantages of integrating content and language learning, provide
persuasive arguments in favor of content-based instruction. Language educators who adopt a
content-based orientation will find that CBI also allows for the incorporation of explicit
language instruction (covering, for example, grammar, conversational gambits, functions,
notions, and skills), thereby satisfying students' language and content learning needs in
context (see Grabe and Stoller 1997 for a more developed rationale for CBI.)
|
|
|
Project work as a natural extension of content-based instruction
|
|
|
Content-based instruction allows for the natural
integration of sound language teaching practices such as alternative means of assessment,
apprenticeship learning, cooperative learning, integrated-skills instruction, project
work, scaffolding, strategy training, and the use of graphic organizers. Although each of
these teaching practices is worthy of extended discussion, this article will focus solely
on project work and its role in content-based instructional formats.
|
|
|
Some language professionals equate project work
with in-class group work, cooperative learning, or more elaborate task-based activities.
It is the purpose of this article, however, to illustrate how project work represents much
more than group work per se. Project-based learning should be viewed as a versatile
vehicle for fully integrated language and content learning, making it a viable option for
language educators working in a variety of instructional settings including general
English, English for academic purposes (EAP), English for specific purposes (ESP), and
English for occupational/vocational/professional purposes, in addition to pre-service and
in-service teacher training. Project work is viewed by most of its advocates "not as
a replacement for other teaching methods" but rather as "an approach to learning
which complements mainstream methods and which can be used with almost all levels, ages
and abilities of students" (Haines 1989:1).
|
|
|
In classrooms where a commitment has been made
to content learning as well as language learning (i.e., content-based classrooms), project
work is particularly effective because it represents a natural extension of what is
already taking place in class. So, for example, in an EAP class structured around
environmental topics, a project which involves the development of poster displays
suggesting ways in which the students' school might engage in more environmentally sound
practices would be a natural outcome of the content and language learning activities
taking place in class. In a vocational English course focusing on tourism, the development
of a promotional brochure highlighting points of interest in the students' home town would
be a natural outgrowth of the curriculum. In a general English course focusing on cities
in English- speaking countries, students could create public bulletin board displays with
pictorial and written information on targeted cities. In an ESP course on international
law, a written report comparing and contrasting the American legal system and the
students' home country legal system represents a meaningful project that allows for the
synthesis, analysis, and evaluation of course content. Project work is equally effective
in teacher training courses. Thus, in a course on materials development, a
student-generated handbook comprising generic exercises for language skills practice at
different levels of English proficiency represents a useful and practical project that can
be used later as a teacher-reference tool. The hands-on experience that the
teachers-in-training have with project-based learning could, in turn, transfer to their
own lesson planning in the future (J. Mohanraj, personal communication, June 5, 1997).
These examples represent only some of the possibilities available to teachers and students
when incorporating project work into content-based curricula.
|
|
|
The primary characteristics of project work
|
|
|
Project work has been described by a number of
language educators, including Carter and Thomas (1986), Ferragatti and Carminati (1984),
Fried-Booth (1982, 1986), Haines (1989), Legutke (1984, 1985), Legutke and Thiel (1983),
Papandreou (1994), Sheppard and Stoller (1995), and Ward (1988). Although each of these
educators has approached project work from a different perspective, project work, in its
various configurations, shares these features:
|
|
|
- Project work focuses on content learning rather than on specific language targets.
Real-world subject matter and topics of interest to students can become central to
projects.
- Project work is student centered, though the teacher plays a major role in offering
support and guidance throughout the process.
- Project work is cooperative rather than competitive. Students can work on their own, in
small groups, or as a class to complete a project, sharing resources, ideas, and expertise
along the way.
- Project work leads to the authentic integration of skills and processing of information
from varied sources, mirroring real-life tasks.
- Project work culminates in an end product (e.g., an oral presentation, a poster session,
a bulletin board display, a report, or a stage performance) that can be shared with
others, giving the project a real purpose. The value of the project, however, lies not
just in the final product but in the process of working towards the end point. Thus,
project work has both a process and product orientation, and provides students with
opportunities to focus on fluency and accuracy at different project-work stages.
- Project work is potentially motivating, stimulating, empowering, and challenging. It
usually results in building student confidence, self-esteem, and autonomy as well as
improving students' language skills, content learning, and cognitive abilities.
|
|
|
Project work and its various configurations
|
|
|
Though similar in many ways, project work can
take on diverse configurations. The most suitable format for a given context depends on a
variety of factors including curricular objectives, course expectations, students'
proficiency levels, student interests, time constraints, and availability of materials. A
review of different types of projects will demonstrate the scope, versatility, and
adaptability of project work.
|
|
|
Projects differ in the degree to which the
teacher and students decide on the nature and sequencing of project-related activities, as
demonstrated by three types of projects proposed by Henry (1994): Structured projects
are determined, specified, and organized by the teacher in terms of topic, materials,
methodology, and presentation; unstructured projects are defined largely by
students themselves; and semi-structured projects are defined and organized in part
by the teacher and in part by students.
|
|
|
Projects can be linked to real-world concerns
(e.g., when Italian ESP students designed a leaflet for foreign travel agencies outside of
Europe describing the advantages of the European Community's standardization of electrical
systems as a step towards European unity (see Footnote 1 ) or when general English students at an international school
created a public bulletin board display-with photos and text based on extensive interviews
with EFL faculty-introducing new students to their EFL teachers [see Footnote
2 ]). Projects can also be linked to simulated real-world
issues (e.g., when EAP students staged a debate on the pros and cons of censorship as part
of a content-based unit on censorship [see Footnote 3 ]). Projects can also be tied to student interests, with or
without real-world significance (e.g., when general English students planned an elaborate
field trip to an international airport where they conducted extensive interviews and
videotaping of international travelers; see Ferragatti and Carminati 1984; Legutke 1984,
1985; Legutke and Thiel 1983).
|
|
|
Projects can also differ in data collection
techniques and sources of information as demonstrated by these project types: Research
projects necessitate the gathering of information through library research. Similarly,
text projects involve encounters with "texts" (e.g., literature, reports,
news media, video and audio material, or computer-based information) rather than people. Correspondence
projects require communication with individuals (or businesses, governmental agencies,
schools, or chambers of commerce) to solicit information by means of letters, faxes, phone
calls, or electronic mail. Survey projects entail creating a survey instrument and
then collecting and analyzing data from "informants." Encounter projects
result in face-to-face contact with guest speakers or individuals outside the classroom
(see Haines 1989, and Legutke and Thomas 1991, for a more detailed description of these
project types.)
|
|
|
Projects may also differ in the ways that
information is "reported" as part of a culminating activity (see Haines 1989). Production
projects involve the creation of bulletin board displays, videos, radio programs,
poster sessions, written reports, photo essays, letters, handbooks, brochures, banquet
menus, travel itineraries, and so forth. Performance projects can take shape as
staged debates, oral presentations, theatrical performances, food fairs, or fashion shows.
Organizational projects entail the planning and formation of a club, conversation
table, or conversation partner program.
|
|
|
Whatever the configuration, projects can be
carried out intensively over a short period of time or extended over a few weeks, or a
full semester; they can be completed by students individually, in small groups, or as a
class; and they can take place entirely within the confines of the classroom or can extend
beyond the walls of the classroom into the community or with others via different forms of
correspondence.
|
|
|
Incorporating project work into the classroom
|
|
|
Project work, whether it is integrated into a
content-based thematic unit or introduced as a special sequence of activities in a more
traditional classroom, requires multiple stages of development to succeed. Fried- Booth
(1986) proposes an easy-to-follow multiple-step process that can guide teachers in
developing and sequencing project work for their classrooms. Similarly, Haines (1989)
presents a straightforward and useful description of project work and the steps needed for
successful implementation. Both the Fried- Booth and Haines volumes include detailed de-
scriptions of projects that can be adapted for many language classroom settings. They also
offer suggestions for introducing students to the idea of student- centered activity
through bridging strategies (Fried-Booth 1986) and lead-in activities (Haines 1989),
particularly useful if one's students are unfamiliar with project work and its emphasis on
student initiative and autonomy.
|
|
|
Sheppard and Stoller (1995) proposed an
eight-step sequence of activities for orchestrating project work in an ESP classroom. That
model has been fine-tuned, after testing it in a variety of language classrooms and
teacher training courses. The new 10-step sequence (see Figure 1 ) is described here in detail. The revised model gives
easy-to-manage structure to project work and guides teachers and students in developing
meaningful projects that facilitate content learning and provide opportunities for
explicit language instruction at critical moments in the project. These language
"intervention" lessons will help students complete their projects successfully
and will be appreciated by students because of their immediate applicability and
relevance. The language intervention steps (IV, VI, and VIII) are optional in teacher
education courses, depending on the language proficiency and needs of the
teachers-in-training.
|
|
|
To understand the function of each proposed
step, imagine a content-based EAP classroom focusing on American elections (see Footnote 4 ). (A parallel discussion
could be developed for classrooms- general English, EAP, ESP, vocational English, and so
forth-focusing on American institutions, demography, energy alternatives, farming safety,
fashion design, health, the ideal automobile, insects, Native Americans, pollution, rain
forests, the solar system, etc.). The thematic unit is structured so that the instructor
and students can explore various topics: the branches of the U.S. government, the election
process, political parties with their corresponding ideologies and platforms, and voting
behaviors. Information on these topics is introduced by means of readings from books,
newspapers, and news magazines; graphs and charts; videos; dicto-comps; teacher-generated
lectures and note-taking activities; formal and informal class discussions and group work;
guest speakers; and U.S. political party promotional materials. While exploring these
topics and developing some level of expertise about American elections, students improve
their listening and note-taking skills, reading proficiency, accuracy and fluency in
speaking, writing abilities, study skills, and critical thinking skills. To frame this
discussion, it should be noted that the thematic unit is embedded into an
integrated-skills, content-based course with the following objectives:
|
|
|
- To encourage students to use language to learn something new about topics of interest
- To prepare students to learn subject matter through English
- To expose students to content from a variety of informational sources to help students
improve their academic language and study skills
- To provide students with contextualized resources for understanding language and content
- To simulate the rigors of academic courses in a sheltered environment
- To promote students' self-reliance and engagement with learning
|
|
|
After being introduced to the theme unit and its
most fundamental vocabulary and concepts, the instructor introduces a semi-structured
project to the class that will be woven into class lessons and that will span the length
of the thematic unit. The teacher has already made some decisions about the project:
Students will stage a simulated political debate that addresses contemporary political and
social issues. To stimulate interest and a sense of ownership in the process, the
instructor will work with the students to decide on the issues to be debated, the number
and types of political parties represented in the debate, the format of the debate, and a
means for judging the debate. To move from the initial conception of the project to the
actual debate, the instructor and students follow 10 steps.
|
|
|
Step I: Students and instructor agree on a
theme for the project
|
|
|
To set the stage, the instructor gives students
an opportunity to shape the project and develop some sense of shared perspective and
commitment. Even if the teacher has decided to pursue a structured project, for which most
decisions are made by the instructor, students can be encouraged to fine-tune the project
theme. While shaping the project together, students often find it useful to make reference
to previous readings, videos, discussions, and classroom activities.
|
|
|
During the initial stage of the American
elections project, students brainstormed issues that might be featured in an American
political debate. Through discussion and negotiation, students identified the following
issues for consideration: taxes, crime, welfare, gun control, abortion, family leave,
foreign policy, affirmative action, election reform, immigration, censorship, the
environment, and environmental legislation. By pooling resources, information, ideas, and
relevant experiences, students narrowed the scope of the debate by choosing select issues
from within the larger set of brainstormed issues that were of special interest to the
class and that were "researchable," meaning that resources were available or
accessible for student research.
|
|
|
Step II: Students and instructor determine
the final outcome
|
|
|
Whereas the first stage of project work involves
establishing a starting point, the second step entails defining an end point, or the final
outcome. Students and instructor consider the nature of the project, its objectives, and
the most appropriate means to culminate the project. They can choose from a variety of
options including a written report, letter, poster or bulletin board display, debate, oral
presentation, information packet, handbook, scrapbook, brochure, newspaper, or video.
|
|
|
In the case of the American elections proj-ect,
the teacher had already decided that the final outcome would be a public debate between
two fictitious political parties. In this second stage of the project, students took part
in defining the nature and format of the debate and designating the intended audience.
With the help of the instructor, it was decided that the class would divide itself into
five topical teams, each one responsible for debating one of the issues previously
identified; topical teams would generate debatable propositions on their designated issue
and then divide into two subgroups so that each side of the issue could be represented in
the debate. Students would also be grouped into two political parties, which they would
name themselves, with one side of each issue represented in the political party; the
issues and corresponding perspectives would form the party platform. The 40-minute debate
was structured as follows:
|
|
|
| Opening remarks |
|
|
Representative from first party |
1 minute |
|
Representative from second party |
1 minute |
|
|
|
| Issue 1 |
|
|
Party representative who supports
proposition |
2 minutes |
|
Party representative who opposes
proposition |
2 minutes |
|
|
|
| Issue 1 rebuttals |
|
|
Another party representative who supports
proposition |
1 minute |
|
Another party representative who opposes
proposition |
1 minute |
|
|
|
| Issues 2- 5 |
|
|
(Same pattern as Issue 1) |
24 minutes |
|
|
|
| Questions and answers from audience to
other party representatives |
6 minutes |
| Closing remarks |
|
|
Speaker from second party |
1 minute |
|
Speaker from first party |
1 minute |
The class decided to invite English-speaking friends and graduate students enrolled in a
TESL/TEFL program to serve as their audience and judges. It was decided that the audience
would vote on which team presented the most persuasive arguments during the debate.
|
|
|
Step III: Students and instructor
structure the project
|
|
|
After students have determined the starting and
end points of the project, they need to structure the "body" of the project.
Questions that students should consider are as follows: What information is needed to
complete the project? How can that information be obtained (e.g., a library search,
interviews, letters, faxes, e-mail, the World Wide Web, field trips, viewing of videos)?
How will the information, once gathered, be compiled and analyzed? What role does each
student play in the evolution of the project (i.e., Who does what?)? What time line will
students follow to get from the starting point to the end point? The answers to many of
these questions depend on the location of the language program and the types of
information that are within easy reach (perhaps collected beforehand by the instructor)
and those that must be solicited by "snail" mail, electronic mail, fax, or phone
call.
|
|
|
In this American elections project, it was
decided that topical team members would work together to gather information that could be
used by supporters and opponents of their proposition before actually taking sides. In
this way, topical team members would share all their resources, later using it to take a
stand and plan a rebuttal. Rather than keeping information secret, as might be done in a
real debate setting, the idea was to establish a cooperative and collaborative working
atmosphere. Topical team members would work as a group to compile gathered information (in
the form of facts, opinions, and statistics) and then analyze it to determine what was
most suitable to the sides supporting and opposing their proposition. At this point,
students would subdivide into groups of supporters and opponents and then work separately
(and with other party members) to prepare for the debate. At that time, students would
decide on different roles: the spokespersons, the "artists" who would create
visuals (charts and graphs) to be used during the debate, and so forth.
|
|
|
Step IV: Instructor prepares students for
the language demands of informationgathering
|
|
|
It is at this point that the instructor
determines, perhaps in consultation with the students, the language demands of the
information gathering stage (Step V). The instructor can then plan language instruction
activities to prepare students for information gathering tasks. If, for example, students
are going to collect information by means of interviews, the instructor might plan
exercises on question formation, introduce conversational gambits, and set aside time for
role-plays to provide feedback on pronunciation and to allow students to practice
listening and note-taking or audio-taping. If, on the other hand, students are going to
use a library to gather materials, the instructor might review steps for finding resources
and practice skimming and note-taking with sample texts. The teacher may also help
students devise a grid for organized data collection. If students will be writing letters
to solicit information for their proj-ect, the teacher can introduce or review letter
formatting conventions and audience considerations, including levels of formality and word
choice. If students will be using the World Wide Web for information gathering, the
instructor can review the efficient use of this technology.
|
|
|
Step V: Students gather information
|
|
|
Students, having practiced the language, skills,
and strategies needed to gather information, are now ready to collect information and
organize it so that others on their team can make sense of it. In the project highlighted
here, students reread course readings in search for relevant materials, used the library
to look for new support, wrote letters to political parties to determine their stand on
the issue under consideration, looked into finding organizations supporting or opposing
some aspect of their proposition (e.g., gun control groups) and solicited information that
could possibly be used in the debate. During this data-gathering stage, the instructor,
knowing the issues and propositions being researched, also brought in information that was
potentially relevant, in the form of readings, videos, dicto-comps, and teacher-generated
lectures, for student consideration.
|
|
|
Step VI: Instructor prepares students for
the language demands of compiling andanalyzing data
|
|
|
After successfully gathering information,
students are then confronted with the challenges of organizing and synthesizing
information that may have been collected from different sources and by different
individuals. The instructor can prepare students for the demands of the compilation and
analysis stage by setting up sessions in which students organize sets of materials, and
then evaluate, analyze, and interpret them with an eye towards determining which are most
appropriate for the supporters and opponents of a given proposition. Introducing students
to graphic representations (e.g., grids and charts) that might highlight relationships
among ideas is particularly useful at this point.
|
|
|
Step VII: Students compile and analyze
information
|
|
|
With the assistance of a variety of
organizational techniques (including graphic organizers), students compile and analyze
information to identify data that are particularly relevant to the project. Student teams
weigh the value of the collected data, discarding some, because of their inappropriacy for
the project, and keeping the rest. Students determine which information represents primary
"evidence" for the supporters and opponents of their proposition. It is at this
point that topical teams divide themselves into two groups and begin to work separately to
build the strongest case for the debate.
|
|
|
Step VIII: Instructor prepares students
for the language demands of theculminating activity
|
|
|
At this point in the development of the project,
instructors can bring in language improvement activities to help students succeed with the
presentation of their final products. This might entail practicing oral presentation
skills and receiving feedback on voice projection, pronunciation, organization of ideas,
and eye contact. It may involve editing and revising written reports, letters, or bulletin
board display text. In the case of the American elections debate project, the instructor
focused on conversational gambits to be used during the debate to indicate polite
disagreement and to offer divergent perspectives (see Mach, Stoller, and Tardy 1997).
Students practiced their oral presentations and tried to hypothesize the questions that
they would be asked by opponents. They timed each other and gave each other feedback on
content, word choice, persuasiveness, and intonation. Students also worked with the
"artists" in their groups to finalize visual displays, to make sure they were
grammatically correct and easily interpretable by the audience. Students also created a
flyer announcing the debate (see appendix), which served as an invitation to and reminder
for audience members.
|
|
|
Step IX: Students present final product
|
|
|
Students are now ready to present the final
outcome of their projects. In the American elections project, students staged their debate
in front of an audience, following the format previously agreed upon. The audience voted
on the persuasiveness of each political party, and a winner was declared. In the case
described here, the debate was videotaped so that students could later review their debate
performances and receive feedback from the instructor and their peers.
|
|
|
Step X: Students evaluate the project
|
|
|
Although students and instructors, alike, often
view the presentation of the final product as the very last stage in the project work
process, it is worthwhile to ask students to reflect on the experience as the last and
final step. Students can reflect on the language that they mastered to complete the
project, the content that they learned about the targeted theme (in the case highlighted
here that would be American elections, party platforms, and the role of debate in the
election process), the steps that they followed to complete the project, and the
effectiveness of their final product. Students can be asked how they might proceed
differently the next time or what suggestions they have for future project work endeavors.
Through these reflective activities, students realize how much they have learned and the
teacher benefits from students' insights for future classroom projects.
|
|
|
Content-based instruction and project work
provide two means for making English language classrooms more vibrant environments for
learning and collaboration. Project work, however, need not be limited to content-based
language classes. Language teachers in more traditional classrooms can diversify
instruction with an occasional project. Similarly, teacher educators can integrate
projects into their courses to reinforce important pedagogical issues and provide trainees
with hands-on experience, a process that may be integrated into future classrooms of their
own.
|
|
|
Whether a project centers around American
elections, demography, peace I37 education, syllabus design, or methodology, students of
varying levels and needs can benefit from the empowering experience that results from
participation and collaboration in a project. And though project work may be easier to
implement in second language settings because of more readily accessible content
resources, teachers in foreign language settings have already proven that with adaptation
and creativity, the project approach can be successful and rewarding for teachers and
students alike.
|
|
|
Fredricka
L. Stoller is an associate professor in the ESL/applied linguistics programs at
Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona. She is also director of the Program in
Intensive English at the same university. |
|
|
Return
|
|
|
- Alexander, P., J. Kulikowich, and T. Jetton. 1994. The role of subject-matter knowledge
and interest in the processing of linear and nonlinear texts. Review of Educational
Research, 64, 2, pp. 201-252.
- Anderson, J. R. 1990. Cognitive psychology and its implications (3rd ed.). New York: W.
H. Freeman.
- Bereiter, C., and M. Scardamalia. 1993. Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature
and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court Press.
- Brinton, D., M. Snow, and M. Wesche. 1989. Content-based second language instruction.
New York: Newbury House.
- Carter, G., and H. Thomas. 1986. "Dear Brown Eyes": Experiential learning in a
project orientated approach. ELT Journal, 40, 3, pp. 196-204.
- Ferragatti, M., and E. Carminati. 1984. Airport: An Italian version. Modern English
Teacher, 2, 4, pp. 15- 17.
- Fried-Booth, D. 1982. Project work with advanced classes. ELT Journal, 36, 2, pp.
98-103.
- ---. 1986. Project work. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Grabe, W., and F. Stoller. 1997. Content-based instruction: Research foundations. In The
content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content. eds. M. Snow
and D. Brinton. White Plains, New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
- Haines, S. 1989. Projects for the EFL classroom: Resource material for teachers.
Walton-on-Thames Surrey, UK: Nelson.
- Henry, J. 1994. Teaching through projects. London: Kogan Page Limited.
- Legutke, M. 1984. Project Airport: Part 1. Modern English Teacher, 11, 4, pp. 10-14.
- ----.1985. Project Airport: Part 2. Modern English Teacher, 12, 1, pp. 28-31.
- Legutke, M. and W. Thiel. 1983 Airport: Ein project fr der Englischunterricht in
klasse 6. Hessisches Institut fr Bildungsplanung und Schulentwicklung (HIBS), Abt.
IE, Bodenstedstrasse 7, D 6200 Wiesbaden.
- Legutke, M. and H. Thomas. 1991. Process and experience in the language classroom. New
York: Longman.
- Mach, T., F. Stoller, and C. Tardy. 1997. A gambit-driven debate. In New Ways in
Content-based Instruction. eds. D. Brinton and P. Master. pp. 64-68 Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
- Papandreou, A. 1994. An application of the projects approach to EFL. English Teaching
Forum, 32, 3, pp.41-42.
- Sheppard, K., and F. Stoller. 1995. Guidelines for the integration of student projects
in ESP classrooms. English Teaching Forum, 33, 2, pp. 10-15.
- Singer, M. 1990. Psychology of language: An introduction to sentence and discourse
processing. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
- Ward, G. 1988. I've got a project on.. New South Wales, Australia: Primary English
Teaching Association.
|
|
Figure 1
Developing a Project in a Language Classroom
Step I:
Agree on a theme for the project |
Step II:
Determine the final outcome |
Step III:
Structure the project |
|
.................................................
Step lV:
Prepare students for
the language demands
of Step V
................................................. |
|
Step V:
Gather information |
|
.................................................
Step VI:
Prepare students for
the language demands
of Step VII
................................................. |
|
Step VII:
Compile and analyze information |
|
.................................................
Step VIII:
Step :
Prepare students for
the language demands
of Step IX
................................................. |
|
Step IX:
Present final product |
Step X:
Evaluate the project |
|
Footnote 1
| 1. This ESP project, titled
"Connecting Europe with a New Plug," was designed by Italian instructors Laura
Chiozzotto, Innocenza Giannasi, Laura Paperini, and Antonio Ragosa for students of
electrotechnics and electronics |
Footnote 2
| 2. A project similar to this, titled
"Wall Newspaper: Know Your EFL Teachers," was developed by Kris Hoover for
students at the International School in Bangkok, Thailand. The project is an adaptation of
Fried-Booth's (1986) "Staff Portrait Gallery" project (p. 21- 23). |
Footnote 3
| 3. This debate was the culminating
activity in a theme-based unit on censorship, designed by Kevin Eyraud and Gillian Giles
in collaboration with their EAP students, at Northern Arizona University. |
Footnote 4
| 4. The thematic unit outlined here is
fashioned after a similar unit developed and implemented by Gillian Giles and Susan Koenig
at Northern Arizona University. |
Back to Article
|
. |
. |