Following a brief overview of the instructional context, the paper focuses on each of the instructional needs, with accompanying discussion of successful teacher strategies and classroom techniques which helped students make successful transitions to more self-directed learning.
It is my experience that many Asian language learners who are enrolled in pre-university or university coursework experience undue stress when expected to participate actively and become self-directed within the language learning classroom. Many have highly sophisticated academic skills within accustomed, teacher-directed classrooms but experience confusion and anxiety when attempting to understand their responsibilities within a more learner-directed classroom culture. They may misunderstand or even lose respect for a teacher who expects collaborative and cooperative learning with other students rather than takes on the traditional role of teacher as the main source of knowledge. Similarly, group and alternative assessment strategies (e.g., grade options, portfolios, projects) can similarly cause learner stress over grades. Lack of awareness and understanding of learner and teacher roles can actually inhibit the academic success of students, especially those accustomed to traditional, teacher-directed approaches.
Reid (1996) states that "ESL/EFL teachers and teachers-in-training need to learn about educational systems, need to investigate and analyze cross-cultural and intercultural educational values, and then need to communicate the differences between American academic values and the educational values of other cultures to our students..." (p. 3). There is no doubt that teachers play a crucial role in orienting and preparing students for successful participation in our classes. We should therefore consider and develop techniques which will help students make successful transitions to their expected roles as active learners.
When an ELT (English Language Training) program in Malaysia made the transition from a traditional, teacher-directed, skills-separate curricular model to a more learner-directed, content-based, and integrated skills model, we quickly found that students required explicit guidance to perform more effectively within the new model. They needed an enhanced awareness of how teacher and learner roles in a more learner-directed model differed from those in a more teacher-directed model. Differences between educational systems and a consideration of educational values and beliefs required discussion and reflection on the part of both teachers and students. The second need was to assist students in developing improved study, organization, and learning habits so that they could participate more successfully within content-based, EAP-oriented (English for Academic Purposes) classes. Teachers developed a variety of ways to help students become more mentally prepared for learning while also helping them with physical aspects such as how to organize class materials and how to meet due date schedules. Finally, students needed to move beyond recall of literal level knowledge to more active, applied learning. Critical thinking and problem-solving tasks and activities were therefore developed which required that students demonstrate their abilities to apply and extend knowledge gained.
The next section of this paper will provide a brief overview of the ELT instructional context. Particular attention is given to phase three of the curriculum, which emphasized a learner-directed, EAP-oriented program of instruction. The remaining sections of the paper then focus on each of the three major student needs identified during implementation of that phase. The accompanying discussion outlines successful teacher strategies and classroom techniques used to help students in their transition to more self-directed, content-based learning.
Based on entry proficiency assessment and progress throughout their first eight weeks in ELT courses, students were placed into one of three tracks. Accelerated track students constituted about 15% of each intake and attended only the eight-week summer session before gaining admittance to full-time university studies. Track One students constituted approximately a third of each intake and participated in eight weeks (summer) and an additional sixteen weeks (fall semester) of ELT courses before beginning full-time university studies in January. Track Two students, the majority, attended ELT classes for an entire year (summer and two full semesters), beginning university coursework in May.
In the early 1990s, the decision was made to revise the ESL course of study so as to provide a better transition to university academic coursework through adoption of a three-phase, integrated skills approach. Goals during the first phase (General English) were to promote learner self-confidence and fluency in English, encouraging reading as a habit and practicing purposeful recognition of English language forms, meanings, and functions. At phase two (Study Skills) critical reading and study skills were taught, then practiced with materials designed to explicitly teach/learn the targeted skill. A process approach to writing helped learners progress from a focus on fluency in writing to more structured planning, organization, and editing of written work for academic purposes. At the third phase (EAP), which is the focus of this paper, language and study skills were applied with content-based textbook chapters and videos. Achievement tests included both assessment of content knowledge and ability to apply study skills. Essay exam writing focused on interpretive and applied comprehension of content, and students also employed library research skills to write extensive research papers. Table 1 depicts how each track of students moved through the various curricular phases.
| Track | Summer Session | Fall Semester | Spring Semester | Summer Session |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Track 2 | Phase 1 General English -- 8 wks | Phase 1 General English -- 8 wks Phrase 2 Study Skills -- 8 wks | Phase 2 Study Skills -- 2 wks Phase 3 EAP Earth Science -- 14 wks | Enter Full-Time University |
| Track 1 | Phase 1 General English -- 6 wks Phase 2 Study Skills -- 2 wks | Phase 2 Study Skills -- 4 wks Phase 3 EAP Social Science -- 12 wks | Enter Full-Time University | |
| Accelerated | Phase 2 Study Skills -- 2 wks Phase 3 EAP Social Science -- 6 wks | Enter Full-Time University | /td> |
As you can see, Track 2 students moved through all three phases, beginning with the development of self-confidence, fluency, and habitual reading in English before moving into the second phase. Track 1 students began in Phase 2, where they were explicitly taught language and study skills and given practice with skill-focused materials. Accelerated track students first participated in a two-week study skill module (phase 2) but then quickly moved into phase 3, where they were expected to apply language and study skills while interacting with academic texts and materials. Content-based EAP (English for Academic Purposes) modules (see Table 2) were thus the focus during the final phase of the program.
| Track 2 |
| I. Phase 2 Study Skills Review (2 weeks) |
II. Environmental Science Content Module (10 weeks):
|
| III. Futures Module (4 weeks) and Skill-Based Exam |
| IV. Group Project Presentations (Survey) |
| Track 1 |
| I. Phase 2 Study Skills (4 weeks) |
| II. Social Psychology Content Module (6 weeks) & Midterm |
| III. Consumerism Content Module (6 weeks) & Final |
| IV. Group Project Presentations (Advertisement) |
| Accelerated Track |
| I. Phase 2 Study Skills (2 weeks) |
| II. Social Psychology Content Module (3 weeks) & Midterm |
| III. Consumerism Content Module (3 weeks) & Final |
| IV. Group Project Presentations (Advertisement) |
Due to a number of factors, Social Science and Earth Science themes were selected for our content-based modules. Both Social Science and Earth Science explore concepts which are of global interest and for which students and teachers already had well-developed background knowledge. At the same time, local examples and supplemental materials were readily available, allowing students to select individual research topics of interest and teachers to supplement with high interest and language focus materials which also fit curricular content. Social Science concepts provided background for courses the Track 1 students (mostly business majors) would later take, while Earth Science topics similarly provided background knowledge for science-oriented courses Track 2 students (mostly engineering students) would take. Content also introduced students to the study of affixes and root words found in a variety of academic fields.
Snow, Met, and Genesee (1989) provide rationale regarding the benefits of integrated skill, content-based instruction. An integrated approach ties language learning to cognitive and academic development, so content provides motivation and a cognitive base for learning and teaching language. Content also allows students to negotiate meaning with others, providing "conceptual or cognitive hangers on which language functions and structures can be hung" (p. 202). In other words, students are able to explore ideas and reinforce concepts related to content and, at the same time, practice relevant language skills and functions. Concepts and ideas found in content-based materials are linked with instructional activities designed to elicit targeted language structures. Content-based concepts thus provide communicative contexts ("hangers") for meaningful language interaction. In addition, content-based instruction allows students to learn the subject and specific academic registers which "may be a prerequisite to mastery of specific content or to academic development in general" (p. 203).
Texts included authentic university textbook chapters, pertinent journal and newspaper articles collected by teachers and learners, and video- and audio-taped documentaries and academic lectures. Explicit EAP (English for Academic Purposes) objectives were targeted, with students expected to employ academic study skills as they also studied and were tested over content knowledge. Learners were evaluated equally on the ability to use EAP skills and strategies and their knowledge of content.
During the year of curricular innovation, approximately 200 students and 16 American and Malaysian teachers worked together in the ELT program. EAP classes were taught in blocks of three hours, four days a week with one day each week set aside for teacher meetings, materials development, and student conferences. This was a drastic departure from our previous more traditional skills-based curricula (courses in listening/ speaking, reading, writing, grammar) which had been taught in fifty-minute blocks. Longer teaching periods were set so that video- and text-based materials could be integrated and so that students would have time for project and group work.
Group investigative projects were the focus of the final module, with students expected to formulate and test hypotheses, collect data, summarize and report data and conclusions, and work cooperatively to make decisions, establish timelines, decide tasks, individual responsibilities, and so on. Students also worked in "mailbox" groups to locate, summarize, and display/distribute outside journal and newspaper readings which related to class topics. They were frequently asked to assess their own and others' contributions within the group. Students also worked in study groups before each test. They would first individually construct literal, interpretive, and applied-type questions over course content, then work in groups to negotiate and collate the best questions into a set to be studied and judged by other groups. In addition to group work and assessment, students were also asked to self-assess and to reflect upon their learning and performance. For example, after each test, they completed a test debriefing guide, then met individually with the teacher. In these conferences, they were asked to indicate areas of strength/weakness and what they felt should be done to improve their English proficiency and their academic skill development before the next test. An overview of sample objectives for text chapters, videos, and group projects is provided in the Appendix.
As we implemented the new curricula, it soon became apparent that students were unaccustomed to their new roles and responsibilities in this more learner-directed classroom. Many had trouble coping with the quantity and diversity of materials, had difficulty following the instructional schedule, and misunderstood or were confused by teacher expectations that they work collaboratively in groups while also taking more responsibility for their own learning success. We found that these were skills which required philosophical orientation and discussion, frequent modeling, step-by-step teacher support, and multiple opportunities for practice. However, we also found that, if teachers attended to building the skills needed, students could participate more comfortably and successfully within this new classroom culture.
Differences in how students were evaluated. Our learners were accustomed to a cumulative examination-based assessment model and were thus confused by the new model which stressed steady growth, developmental evaluation, and applied proof of learning. On tests and class projects, students were expected to go well beyond the literal level of lecture and textbook content mastery to apply and extend knowledge and skills. Most students, however, expected to memorize notes and text details as presented by the teacher, then be tested on discrete, literal-level information. They were upset, frustrated, or at best puzzled by synthesis essay questions, problem-solving activities, and portfolio/project work which were all used for learner assessment. Those from rural areas where materials and resources were quite limited were expecting tests to center solely around textbook chapters; it came as a great surprise that information from supplemental handouts, reserved readings, videos and lectures were all considered "testable" material.
Another assessment difference (related to educational systems) was in the frequency with which they expected progress to be measured. Evaluation which was weekly (sometimes daily) in the form of regular attendance, class participation, homework, and quizzes was a strange concept to learners accustomed to a cumulative examination being the majority of their grade. Many students were accustomed to "cramming" for an all-important, end-of-term comprehensive examination and had to drastically revise learning activities and pacing. Students were confused by testing terminology, as well. Semantically, what an American professor would consider to be a "test" was, in their system, an "examination." The concept and importance of a "quiz" had to be carefully explained. Teachers found it necessary to explicitly describe the difference in score weighting between quizzes, tests, and examinations. Many students simply did not understand the difference until it was explained and they found that their grade was suffering.
We tried to adjust for these differences in understanding by meeting individually with students within the first month of class to explain their standing grade and to compare their strengths and needs to what was expected of a successful student. We also documented homework, participation, and quiz grades more formally and gave regular (weekly feedback) to each student to help them be aware of grades and the need to make consistent progress.
Differences in teacher role and responsibilities. We found that our students expected the teacher to be the main source of information in the classroom, especially when preparing students for successful performance on tests. The Malaysian teachers were similarly concerned about administrators' judging them to be "bad teachers" or parents' thinking they weren't doing their jobs as they included more collaborative and cooperative learning activities within their instructional plans. Teachers were worried that they would be held accountable for their students' weaknesses on tests. Promotion and continuation decisions were a concern, with some teachers worried that their jobs may depend partially on students' examination scores. This was a continuing issue as we implemented the new curriculum since tests were meant to measure both the ability to apply EAP skills as well as the ability to learn content.
We also found that students often had trouble knowing what to do if they were not performing well in the course. In their accustomed education system, the teacher would normally seek out a struggling student, offer individual tutoring, or otherwise intervene.
We tried a number of strategies to encourage learners to feel more directly responsible for their own learning success. Progress checklists, debriefing over tests, and reflective journal entries were all used as ways to make students consider their progress and to be pro-active in making necessary adjustments. Group work and investigative projects encouraged students to take control of both product and process. Teachers were asked to explain that, in the American university context, professors offer knowledge, facilitate learning, and are one of several resources available to students as they master the necessary content. The professor is not typically viewed as being primarily responsible for the learner's success or failure in the course. If there was a problem, the learner was asked to identify it and to develop means to solve it. The test debriefing sessions, we found, were particularly helpful in leading students through this process.
Students were encouraged to employ "teacher-friendly" approaches. While an instructor would welcome explicit questions which asked for clarification or showed evidence of problem-solving strategies, requests to "say it again" or to go over missed material were not tolerated. Teachers modeled when and how to ask questions during class using precise, concise language. When covering difficult concepts, we often asked that students come prepared to class with at least one question written on an index card. These questions were then covered in class, either in groups or in teacher-directed activities to find and discuss answers found in texts and notes. We required that students know and use instructors' office hours efficiently, arriving on time and being prepared with a list of questions or an agenda written down.
Differences in communication style/medium. A final difference related to educational systems was in the emphasis placed on written versus verbal language. In an American educational setting, what is written down on paper tends to be most important; written communications are considered to be an efficient way of informing people without having to waste time telling them verbally. This was a difficulty for our learners, who came from more oral-based cultures in which important information is traditionally transmitted by word of mouth. Students would typically read classroom handouts yet still ask that the teacher state the information verbally for confirmation of what was read. For these learners, the message was not "real" until transmitted orally.
As means to prepare students to deal with professors from more reading-based cultures, we developed instructional calendars and due date checklists to help students become accustomed to reading for instructions while better understanding their responsibilities in the class. Some teachers found that giving a quiz over the syllabus and asking that students sign and date an acknowledgment that they had carefully read and understood it helped to alleviate problems with students who were too teacher-dependent. We deducted points on assignments if they did not follow written instructions.
Overt discussion of teacher expectations regarding classroom preparedness, procedures, and student participation did much to alleviate problems. An active participation score was assigned daily so as to reward those who helped themselves and others to learn. One point was deducted if a student was absent without notice, a zero given if absent with notice, one point given if a student was present but inactive or unprepared/tardy, and two points given to students who were active, prepared, and helped themselves and others to learn. Students were also asked to develop a class "constitution" in which all class members agreed to abide by certain "rules" that would help them to learn the target language. The class agreed on the consequences of not following the rules, so the teacher did not have to act in an authoritative role to enforce rules. The focus of classroom constitution decision-making was on building an optimal language learning environment.
Other means to make both students and teachers aware of conflict between their educational values and beliefs was the use of built-methods of communicating concerns. Conferencing, journal writing, frequent class evaluations, and activity ratings were methods used.
Our teachers utilized a number of techniques to reward and reinforce student anticipation of what would be covered, needed, or expected in class for the day. Besides using these techniques, the teachers also tried to overtly explain reasons and expectations to students. We found that students were better organized and prepared for learning if they were made aware of the reasons and purposes for which they were asked to participate in various learning activities.
Being prepared for class. We overtly discussed the fact that students will be at an advantage if they enter class anticipating the content and mentally prepared to pick up where the instructor left off last time. At least once a week, we required that students, upon entering the classroom, independently organize themselves into groups and continue on their own an activity that was carried over from the previous day. Groups that were working when the teacher entered the room were rewarded.
Similarly, we used the daily active participation grade to help students follow the syllabus and read ahead. Key concepts were listed on the chalkboard before students entered the room, encouraging them to browse through the reading to refresh their memories. Teachers were encouraged to start class with a four-minute "quick write," with students' responding in writing to a prompt written on the board which related to the homework. Initial graded activities were planned daily, so latecomers quickly learned to come to class on time. We also gave students the responsibility to set up the classroom (arrange chairs and erase the chalkboard) before the teacher arrived.
We found that use of an agenda written on the board or a weekly class routine was very helpful in encouraging students to anticipate and to be prepared for class. Teachers were asked to end class meetings by briefly discussing the next session and materials students should have out and ready when class begins. They began the next day by asking "What are we doing today? Do you have it out?"
Teachers took turns to find and note key ideas in readings. We then oriented students to assigned readings by mentioning key ideas, by asking them to mark two or three key sentences, by complementing readings with reading guides, or by telling them how many key ideas they should find. When assigning homework, teachers were asked to always work two or three exercises with the class, modeling exactly how to answer and explaining what students should do if confused.
Techniques were used to reward and reinforce student preparedness. Some teachers would go to class ten minutes early to leave directions on the board, then arrive a few minutes late and record who was at work and who was not. When going over homework, students were allowed to change and correct their answers if they actively attempted to clarify or understand a confusing question. This quickly taught students to be aware of what they did and did not know and to mark the questions they wished to ask in class the next day. Students were told that "It's better to come late than to not come at all." We discussed what to do if unavoidably arriving late to class (e.g., in U.S. settings, it is considered rude to apologize and create a scene [if late]; students should just try to enter and blend in as much as possible). Being sick, even with medical documentation, was not an excuse for missing course material. The teacher would help them to cover missed materials if they had a medical excuse and if they made an appointment. Otherwise, they had to get the information from classmates. This policy was a shock for some students who were accustomed to using a medical slip as an excuse for missing homework or other classwork.
Required class notebooks were used to help students organize and be prepared without depending on the instructor for reminders. Course notebooks were required and graded for completeness and organization by the beginning of week two, then collected and graded biweekly thereafter. Teachers provided a sample and modeled how to organize and section the notebook. Procedures for filing new handouts were explained (e.g., noting the date received, writing your name, checking to see if it's a good copy, and filing it in the proper section of the notebook). Past handouts were referred to frequently so that students had them organized, on hand, and began to think of them as regular course materials. We also established procedures whereby students were required to locate and share related materials so as to expand and reinforce outside reading (class mailboxes, a class library, extra credit for bringing in relevant journal articles, etc.).
Learning how to read/listen for a purpose. Teachers worked together to go through texts and materials, establishing different reasons for reading and listening so that students better understood that sometimes reading/listening is for general knowledge, other times it serves to link what is already known about the topic, while other times it helps students to learn and remember information for test-taking purposes. We built in exercises that would combine reading and writing, explaining that "writing to learn" was crucially important for learning and remembering information. When teaching listening, we developed listening guides that required both discrete and global listening. We also used reading/listening guides which built critical thinking skills (e.g., sequencing, matching, categorizing, comparing, identifying problem-solution or cause-effect).
After listening and reading to learn information, we encouraged follow-up work in study groups and the examination of concepts from a variety of perspectives. Group discussion required that students summarize and synthesize what they knew out loud to others, thereby reinforcing learning. We quickly found that our students needed a lot of work in summarizing information and in synthesizing across multiple texts. Tests and homework assignments which asked students to compare and contrast across texts were developed. When writing article summaries, students were asked to include, along with the article citation, a list of key descriptors which went from general to specific.
Extend and reinforce learning. University students must "know how to learn," be able to learn quickly, to express point of view, and to critically respond to others' ideas. American professors tend to seek evidence of learning by assessing a student's ability to apply knowledge and concepts. Students therefore must be able to not only collect and remember information but also organize it, expand upon it, and show connections between ideas.
We used schema activators, advance organizers, and activities which encouraged students to try to understand the whole picture before looking at details (e.g., look at text chapters and tables of contents to see where the course was going, realize that lectures often move from general to specific, be able to explain major concepts verbally and in writing with appropriate use of examples and support). After note-taking, students were asked to highlight any of their notes which were not included in those compiled by the teacher. This encouraged them to focus more on key points (the majority, at first, would try to write everything).
Pre-test activities required that students anticipate what would be tested and what kinds of questions would be asked. We asked them to discriminate between literal, interpretive, and applied type questions and to make up samples of each from class material. Some of their resulting questions were then included on tests.
For difficult concepts, we provided a variety of readings or texts which covered the same concept but from different points of view or in different rhetorical modes. When a particularly difficult concept was being covered, we also asked students to hand in at least one question at the beginning of class. This allowed the teacher to focus instruction on what was most confusing to students. Students were also asked to submit at least one question at the end of class. This again helped the teacher to determine those concepts requiring further explanation. Students were asked to practice summary and paraphrase skills whenever possible, both in writing and in speaking.
Using students as learning resources. The best students were used as resources for learning, but in a face-saving way. We collected the best homework samples for use as models in subsequent semesters. Students could also prepare chapter and learning guides as classwork options. Some teachers assigned rotating class jobs (discussion leaders, librarians, homework checkers, etc.) so that students felt more responsible for help- ing each other learn and felt more responsible for making the class successful.
In addition to class jobs, group work assignments encouraged learner-to-learner collaboration and cooperation. Group work assessment included attention to process as well as product, with learners asked to score how well the group cooperated, whether the work was equally distributed, and the quality and quantity of English used in the group. Group members were also asked to judge their own and each other's contributions to the group.
Alternative evaluation systems were meant to encourage students to consider effort and interest regarding particular assignments. For selected assignments, for example, they could contract for a particular grade by completing a set number of assignments or by choosing particular options. Essay questions on examinations always included a number of prompts from which they could choose a set to answer. Whenever possible, we put students who were currently studying English into contact with students who were further along in their academic work. We also tried to put them in contact with students who had graduated and/or were immersed in authentic language situations where they use English regularly. We found that guests and visitors could do much to reinforce the need to take English language learning seriously and to seek opportunities to practice their abilities.
One panel member recommended that students "see how Americans solve problems" and another suggested that they "be optimistic to see problems as challenges" but "know what you are there for." A third warned that "Teachers assume that basic skills and details can be mastered by the student alone," then added, "Ask questions a lot; otherwise you don't live." It was also recommended that students "Make full use of your academic advisor....Make use of all your school facilities to your advantage."
Similar themes emerged when Asian students enrolled in a pre- university intensive English program in the USA were asked to give advice to other students entering the final EAP phase of the program. Advice from these students again revolved around an awareness that they were dealing with a different educational system, one requiring adaptive student behavior and learning strategies. In a list of "rules" to new EAP students, the following suggestions were made: 1) If you have a problem, go straight to your teacher; 2) Don't be a lazy person; 3) Make your own schedule for your preparation to the class; 4) Give more attention to listening; 5) You must be active in this class. Another added: "Get more interest in what you are going to learn and don't be nervous...attendance is more important than anything else."
The importance of daily attendance, keeping up with homework, and using the teacher as a resource were recurring themes. Another student's set of rules suggested: 1) You should attend the class every school day; 2) Don't forget homework, and send it the teacher on time; 3) Don't be shy. You speak loudly and clearly in the classroom; 4) If you have some question, you would go to the teacher's office and talk about your problems. Another student similarly commented: "Please if you have any problem go see our teacher according to her office hours, ask questions, do your homework, never accumulate work -- this is very important. Be prepared and ready all the time." Another suggested, "I think it's most important to do your homework every day (don't delay [doing] it to the next day). It's an excellent idea to have an appointment with the teacher to discuss our mistakes about any quiz or test you take in class."
Several students commented on the importance of learner-learner interactions and cooperation, with statements such as "...[making friends] with your classmates helps you to learn English language" and "Make friends with classmates ASAP. You can speak in class if you have many friends in our class."
It is obvious from the advice given that these learners were experiencing and reflecting upon the behavioral changes they were making as they responded to a new classroom culture. Comments showed an awareness of teacher expectations and an understanding of their own roles as learners. Rather than focusing on language learning only, these students focused on teacher expectations and student roles and responsibilities in the classroom.
The ELT teachers themselves firmly believed in the value of the curriculum and the strategies they were using to help students become more academically prepared and more successful with content-based, more student-directed learning models. When a new ELT director suggested they change to a more traditional curricular model, the teachers reacted negatively to that suggestion and took the lead to continue refining and improving the three-phase, content-based model.
Another indication of the success of the instructional strategies described in this paper was the request of the provost of the cooperative university program to share an overview of these instructional needs and strategies with over fifty Malaysian and American professors teaching full-time in the academic program (Wilhelm & Pawan, 1990). The professors responded very positively, began informal comparisons of Malaysian versus American professor expectations of learner and teacher roles, and immediately began to adopt some of the instructional strategies outlined.
Finally, the students themselves have consistently commented on the value and worth of both the EAP curricular approach used as well as the need to better adapt to a new educational model. One important indication in the change in the student population was their campus-wide adoption of the motto "Study smart, not hard."
The ideas presented in this paper clearly had an impact on students and teachers in our program. They can similarly be of use to ELT educators working in Asian settings and/or with Asian students. Hopefully, this paper will encourage enhanced awareness and practice of techniques which go beyond a language-only curriculum to meet the needs of students expected to participate in more learner-directed, content-based classrooms.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Reid, J. M. (1996). The learning-centered classroom. TESOL Matters (Feb/March), 3.
Snow, M.A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language instruction. TESOL Quarterly 23(2), 201-217.
Wilhelm, K. H., & Pawan, F. (1990). Cultural differences affecting Malaysian students in an American university setting: Instructional implications. Instructional development seminar, ITM/MUCIA (Indiana University) cooperative university program, Shah Alam, Malaysia.
Study Skills Review (weeks 1 & 2)
Textbook chapter: Matter and Energy (weeks 3 & 4)
Earth Science Documentary Videos (weeks 3-6)
Textbook Chapter: Ecology (weeks 5-7)
Study/Exam Groups for Student-Generated Exams (weeks 3-16)
Journal/Newspaper mailbox group articles (weeks 2-16)
Student-Generated Examinations (at end of each module)
Quiz and Exam Debriefing (weeks 8, 10, 12, 16-17)
An active curriculum and materials developer/consultant, Kim Hughes Wilhelm is currently Curriculum Coordinator of the Center for English as a Second Language and Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, USA. Special interests include collaborative and experiential learning, intercultural decision-making processes, and use of expert systems to predict individual second language learning success.
|
|
|
|
|