Thinking About Change: Insights into the Change Process and the Curriculum

A change in the teaching paradigm means a change in the curriculum - and change is never easy to acknowledge or to implement, especially if one has been used to the traditional ways of classroom instruction. However, there are some who have successfully found a way to effectively introduce anything new by understanding the cause or intention (why), the general and specific information (what) and the degree, state, manner and phases (how) of the proposed change. Michael Fullan is perhaps one of the most prominent and influential authors who advocates education revolution. Anybody who seeks change in edification is required to read his book The New Meaning of Educational Change which was published in 1991. Thus, it is but imperative to understand all of the change stages as introduced by Michael Fullan in order for this specific change to come through successfully. According to his book, a change must gradually progress from initiation to implementation to institutionalization.

One highly notable proposed innovation in teaching paradigm, which certainly seeks to change the curriculum as well, is the shift from a traditional to a content-based ESL (English as Second Language) instruction. There have been many published articles that aim to push through this change. One of these articles is the one written by an ESL Professor who takes interest in enhancing English Language Learner (ELL)'s academic language aptitude through content area education. Dr. Clara Lee Brown, Ed. D. is a notable ESL staff in the University of Tennessee, USA. Her article Content-based ESL Instruction and Curriculum which was published in 2007 in various sites and publications addressed the popular issue of transitioning into a content-based ESL instruction for a better learning.

This paper aims to review the aforementioned article and relate its significance to an ESL class in a Singapore tertiary institute. Essential points will be challenged and qualified so as to arrive to a critical and simplified notion to this very important curriculum change and implementation issue.

From Traditional to Content-Based ESL Instruction: A Necessary Paradigm Transition?

Dr. Clara Lee Brown strongly believes that nowadays, ELLs (English Language Learners) are being challenged to obtain content knowledge as speedily as they can, while they are still progressing on their English language skills. According to her, many English educators and experts agree that a content-based instruction offers a methodology that can help ESL students learn English more competently, due to the fact that they are exposed to the same content-area topics they embark upon in their content-area classes. The major difference, and perhaps what makes content-based instruction better, is that learning is within the context of ESL instruction. The main issue of Dr. Brown's article is that a transition from an oral English aptitude using the communicative language teaching to an academic English aptitude using content-based instruction is but timely and necessary.

Dr. Brown claims that English learners come across complex challenges when asked to carry out academic undertakings since their English is not yet fully developed. She alleged that traditional ways of teaching ESL compels students to harness their skills based solely on specific tasks such as apologizing, giving directions, accepting invitations, among others. Content-based instruction in the other hand assimilates language instruction within the content area; thus, it is more likely to meet both the ESL students' linguistic and academic needs. This claim is in accordance with other scholarly assertions that a content-based instruction and curriculum stimulates ESL students to learn area-specific knowledge, cultivate cognitive and meta-cognitive knowledge and thinking processes, and develop rhetoric and practical writing skills (Raimes, 1983). This argument is also supported by the National Research Council (NRC) as it urges educators to carry on a curriculum that empowers ESL students to relate English concepts to real-life problems which are also subject-area related. This curriculum, which is content-based in nature, has essential instructive connotations as it allows ESL students to develop their content knowledge, as well as their problem-solving and critical-thinking skills while learning English (NRC, 1999a).

Dr. Brown's assumption that content-based instruction promises a more significant path to academic language achievement is allegedly supported by empirical, theoretical, and pedagogical reasons. In her article, she presented several studies conducted by other ESL educators and researchers. One example of these studies is the dual immersion program in the USA over which a certain Montecel and Cortez (2002) carried out a study by examining 10 commendable bilingual programs across the country. The study then proves that learners in bilingual programs are consistently excellent in their English test. This study made Dr. Brown assume that a content-based instruction is indeed effective since bilingual programs are patterned within the dual immersion educational model that takes advantage of the native languages of both the bulk and marginal language students by teaching a second language through content. The article also presented proof of this nature in Canadian immersion programs wherein French ESL students are said to have become more knowledgeable in subject areas (content) than the students under the traditional ESL classes. Though there's absolutely nothing wrong with 'borrowing' studies made by other researchers since they're actually good source of reference, the article's empirical support could have been more reliable and consistent if Dr. Brown herself conducted and presented her own study. She would have presented a stronger case if she expounded on her own data, figures and graphical illustrations.

The author has chosen an educational issue that requires curriculum change. This issue has been popular among ESL educators and thus it never fails to attract attention from both the affirmative and the negative sides. Dr. Brown however chooses to discuss the more favored side of the argument over which many scholarly articles have already been published and written, making her article look a little deficient of supporting arguments. Nonetheless, Dr. Brown's flair in using several models and examples made the article successfully articulate her point that content-based instruction is indeed a better mode of teaching ESL to learners.

It can be observed however that the article fails to discuss a very interesting facet of this rather popular issue; that is, how content-based learning leads to the students' achievement of a higher level critical thinking skills by becoming bilingual (conversing in two languages), bi-cognitive (thinking in two languages), and bicultural (cultivating cultural identities that relates with two cultural backgrounds). This facet is important since the article aims to shift to a curriculum that follows a language socialization model that incorporates cognitive progressions and learning approaches with subject matter across content areas. (Beckett, Gonzalez, Schwartz, 2004). The article also screams of "necessary paradigm changes" which ultimately leads to curriculum changes but it fails to contribute the specific elements that should be depicted on this "new" curriculum. A content-based curriculum contains specific elements which will integrate three vital elements for ESL students to become a successful learner: (1) in depth knowledge of content and subject matter, (2) abstract understanding and/or awareness of knowledge structures in various disciplines, and (3) critical thinking skills that results to effective meta-cognitive strategies and self-monitoring of learning (NRC, 1999a).

Another very important component that the article fails to present in its quest to necessary paradigm changes is the structures/framework which can be an influential theoretical tool in guiding educators and students alike in their insight of the connection among the subject area/content being covered, diverse thinking skills, appropriate linguistic features for the specific subject area/content, and the visuals associated with these structures (See Appendix A and B for sample structures). This framework is built on the idea of organized activities that are central to learning and is proposed to be "a guide to the structure of knowledge across the curriculum" (Mohan, 1986, p. 25).

It can also be noted that the article fails to address a case wherein English is already widely spoken but is grammatically different to the international English. Such is the case of Singapore where "Singlish" (Singapore English) is extensively used. Will a content-based instruction effective for Singaporean ESL students? Singapore is supposedly an English speaking country yet their grammar is different that they may as well speak a different language. In this case, students are already equipped with critical thinking skills that they use not only in their subject areas but also in their daily lives. What they lack is the conversational ability and literacy through conscious grammar learning. But then again Singaporean ESL classes aren't composed of Singaporean students alone. Students also come from surrounding Asian countries such as China, Vietnam, Myanmar, Indonesia, Taiwan, among others. How will a content-based instruction fare in such a culturally-diverse class?

Finally, Dr. Brown has presented several unsupported claims in her article. One is when she pointed out that "Comprehensible input based on content, not grammar, will accelerate second language acquisition processes because language learning is meaningfully induced while English learners are guided through conceptual learning". Another is when she claimed that "The reason content-based ESL instruction has remained outside the realm of reality is that it is difficult to implement."

Giving Into the Change Process: A Conclusion

Dr. Clare Lee Brown's article is timely and necessary - in the sense that at the present, it is indeed essential to shift to a paradigm that will prepare ESL students for real life purposes such as their academic needs. A proposal for a paradigm change is worthy of reading because of the urgent need for a meaningful and efficient instruction model that should replace the currently prevailing yet ineffectual traditional ESL classes. This article can be very significant to those who haven't come across other scholarly articles written by other ESL educators and researchers in line with paradigm and curriculum transitions. The information it presented could alleviate the readers' interest and may even urge them to consider a transition. However, the article isn't very comprehensive nor detailed enough to fuel the readers' interests. For instance, the article claims that ESL educators find it difficult to implement change yet it didn't go as far as providing educators information that will stimulate the development of a content-based curriculum. All things considered, this is a good article which boils down to change. Again, change can be very difficult to accept and implement, but if ESL educators are open to learn the process of change, it may be worth giving in to it.

References

• Clara Lee Brown (2007). Content-based ESL Instruction and Curriculum. Academic Exchange Quarterly.

• Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in Teaching Writing. New York: Oxford University Press.

• National Research Council (NRC) (1999a). How People Learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

• Beckett, Gonzalez, Schwartz, (2004). Content-Based ESL Writing Curriculum: A Language Socialization Model. University of Cincinnati: NABE Journal of Research and Practice.

• Mohan, B. (1986). Language and Content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.