Shorts Article - Integrating Language & Content Instruction: Strategies & Techniques

Posted for Jenna:
The number of LEP students is increasing across the country (?LEP? ? Limited English Proficient students). This means that teachers are finding an ?increasing number of students in their classrooms who have to master content material in a language that is still in the process of being learned? (Short, 1991). Therefore, research has shown that this academic language used in teaching content matter has acted as a barrier for the general academic success of LEP students. Research in this area has shown that providing ESL students with comprehensible input when teaching academic content areas has led to successful second language acquisition. However, one of the quotes that Short mentions in the article seems to be problematic: ?a second language can be effectively learned when it is the medium of instruction, not the object? (Short, 1991). Does this statement imply that all second language learners should be simply mainstreamed without explicit language instruction in the target language/instructional language? The article goes on to explain the necessity that all teachers ?work together? or in other words, that the general education teacher should modify content language to make it comprehensible and that the language teacher should tie language learning to main classroom content as a means of reinforcement. I have personally observed this notion of ?working together? at Donley Elementary here in East Lansing. The ESL teacher uses concepts that ELLs are learning in their main classroom to build her language lessons around. For example, the students were working on the literary concept of an ?ellipse? or a line in a story that ends with ??? In turn, the ESL teacher read a story that demonstrated an ellipse and asked the students to make inferences about what might happen next (students wrote their ideas down on paper to practice grammar, spelling and vocabulary in English). In other words, Short is talking about an ?integrative approach? pairing content-based instruction with language-sensitive content instruction.
Short goes on to introduce a three part approach applicable to both the language teacher as well as the content teacher proposing that teachers should use ?multimedia media?enhance students? thinking skills? and use a ?student-centered organization of instruction? (Short, 1991). Focusing on middle and high school age students in this article (though this integrated structure can be modified for any age), Short provides a number of lesson plans. Instead of going through them one-by-one, let?s look at the common features: each lesson plan ?describes content and language objectives, the thinking/studying skills that may be addressed, the general theme and vocabulary, the necessary materials, the basic procedure, and extension activities for enrichment or other uses? (Short, 1991). During the planning of these integrated lessons, the content and language teachers must collaborate (i.e. know the common content and material, understand language teaching methods, come up with a theme, adapt written materials etc.). Short also provides instructions on how the content teacher may be able to help the LEP student adjust to the classroom specifically focusing on things seemingly simple things like writing legibly, reading directions out loud, keeping a solid routine, and modifying language to make it as comprehensible as possible. As a content teacher, we may need to adjust our teaching styles. Since one of the goals of this integrated approach is make learning more ?student-centered? it is important that we facilitate discussion among students, not lecture. One way of shifting this focus could be asking more open-ended questions to encourage students to talk amongst themselves to solve problems or work through more complex ideas. The development of collaborative student relationships can also reinforce other concepts behind the integrative approach, allowing student from higher proficiencies to help those with lower proficiencies (as large classroom often contain diversity in terms of proficiency levels) or by native speakers helping educate LEP students on cultural aspects of the language they may not be as familiar with (see the semantic webbing activity on p. 8). According to Short, the content teacher should also use common ESL teaching techniques such as visual aids, physical demonstrations (TPR especially), or other hands-on activities to ensure comprehension. What I thought was most interesting about many of the suggestions made in this ?integrated approach,? was the direct connection between scaffolding for LEP students and scaffolding for native-speaking students. This was especially prevalent in the section entitled ?meeting students? cognitive academic needs,? in which Short suggests that content teachers should be ?conscious of different learning styles? and teaching study skills, essay approaches, etc (Short, 1991). This is where the article seemed dated to me, as I considered all we?ve discussed in this program about teaching with Gardner?s Theory of Multiple Intelligences in mind and the idea that no two students learn the same way and that we as teachers have the responsibility to find ways to best reach the ?individual? student. To reinforce this idea, Short goes on to make suggestions about how to check student comprehension; each of the suggestions made parallel with the literacy learning ideas learned in TE 301: techniques such as summarizing, cross curricular/character journaling, or the oral summary to written method of LEA. Even the lesson plan formats are identical (focus-wise) to those that we use here in the College of Education: begin with a warm-up to motivate, present new material, practice/apply new material, review or verbally assess whether the students understood the material presented. Of course there are certain additional steps that need to be taken (by the content teacher) before presenting new material to ESL students. Considerations must be made during say, the screening of a text, about what vocabulary, complex grammar or syntax, figurative language, etc. may be problematic for LEP students. Mary Avalos, author of Modified Guided Reading: Gateway to English as a Second Language and Literacy learning provides a more detailed and perhaps more contemporary account (2007) of what specifically to screen for in lesson planning for elementary age ESL students in a mainstream classroom.
All of this said, I think it is essential to consider the needs and potential difficulties that ESL students may encounter in the mainstream classroom for a given lesson plan. In support of Short, I absolutely believe in the concept of the ?integrated approach? in which content and language teachers must collaborate to ensure the most positive and supportive learning system possible for LEP students. However, how many of the suggestions made in the Short article have we already encountered in our general teacher education courses? Have you personally been instructed on how and where to include modifications for ELLs in your own lesson planning prior to this course? Do you plan to be a content teacher or a language teacher? As a content/language teacher, what steps will you take to collaborate with other teachers and which of these suggestions will you include in your own lesson planning? Do you prefer the specific suggestions of Avalos (2007) Modified Guided Reading approach or the more generalized approach outlined by Short (1991)? Do you agreed with the idea that ?a second language can be effectively learned when it is the medium of instruction, not the object? (Short, 1991)?
* If you want an outline of the techniques in Avalos article, I have an attachment I?d be happy to send your way so you don?t have to read through the whole article. (Avalos article can be found here: http://www.jstor.org.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/stable/20204590?&Search=yes&term=reading&term=guided&term=modified&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dmodified%2Bguided%2Breading%26wc%3Don&item=1&ttl=10943&returnArticleService=showArticle).