Content Based Instruction in EFL Contexts

Stephen Davies sdavies [at] miyazaki-mic.ac.jp Miyazaki International College (Miyazaki, Japan)

Introduction
Content based instruction (CBI) is a teaching method that emphasizes learning about something rather than learning about language. Although CBI is not new, there has been an increased interest in it over the last ten years, particularly in the USA and Canada where it has proven very effective in ESL immersion programs. This interest has now spread to EFL classrooms around the world where teachers are discovering that their students like CBI and are excited to learn English this way.

What Types of Content Based Instruction Are There?

The Sheltered Model
Sheltered and adjunct CBI usually occurs at universities in English L1 contexts. The goal of teachers using sheltered and adjunct CBI is to enable their ESL students to study the same content material as regular English L1 students. Sheltered CBI is called "sheltered" because learners are given special assistance to help them understand regular classes. Two teachers can work together to give instruction in a specific subject. One of the teachers is a content specialist and the other an ESL specialist. They may teach the class together or the class time may be divided between the two of them. For example, the content specialist will give a short lecture and then the English teacher will check that the students have understood the important words by reviewing them later. This kind of team teaching requires teachers to work closely together to plan and evaluate classes. It has been used successfully at the bilingual University of Ottawa, where classes are taught in English and French, (Briton, 1989).

The Adjunct Model

Adjunct classes are usually taught by ESL teachers. The aim of these classes is to prepare students for "mainstream" classes where they will join English L1 learners. Adjunct classes may resemble EPA or ESP classes where emphasis is placed on acquiring specific target vocabulary; they may also feature study skills sessions to familiarize the students with listening, note taking and skimming and scanning texts. Some adjunct classes are taught during the summer months before regular college classes begin, while others run concurrently with regular lessons.

The Theme Based Model

Theme based CBI is usually found in EFL contexts. Theme based CBI can be taught by an EFL teacher or team taught with a content specialist. The teacher(s) can create a course of study designed to unlock and build on their own students' interests and the content can be chosen from an enormous number of diverse topics.

How Does Theme Based CBI Differ from Sheltered and Adjunct Models?
Theme based CBI is taught to students with TEFL scores usually in the range 350 to 500. These scores are lower than the TEFL 500 score which is often the minimum requirement for students who want to study at universities in English L1 contexts. Because of the lower proficiency level of these students, a standard "mainstream" course, such as "Introduction to Economics" will have to be redesigned if it is to be used in a theme based EFL class. For example, complicated concepts can be made easier to understand by using posters and charts, (Mercerize, 2000, p.108).

Syllabus Design for Theme Based CBI

Here is the syllabus for a theme based CBI psychology class that I team taught with a psychologist:

Unit 1 Introduction to psychology Unit 2 Types of learning Unit 3 Advertising and psychological techniques Unit 4 Counseling Unit 5 Psychological illnesses Unit 6 Project work

Each unit took from two to three weeks to complete. The students had two classes per week and each class lasted for two and a half hours. The syllabus that we used is clearly different from a conventional Introduction to Psychology class. Our aim was to allow the students to explore various aspects of psychology rather than attempting to give them a thorough grounding in a subject which, we believed, would have been too difficult for them to understand at this stage. In fact one of the strengths of theme based CBI is its flexibility; teachers can create units with specific learner needs in mind. For example, Unit 3 began with some textbook readings followed by questions and written work. After this the students were given some advertisements to analyze and also brought in their own examples for use in group discussions. Finally, for a small group project, they designed their own advertisements and then presented their work to the other class members with a rationale for why they had chosen their product and who the target customers would be. Among the products they designed were a genetically engineered cake tree and a time vision camera.

Materials for Theme based CBI

There are textbooks that can be used for theme based CBI classes which usually contain a variety of readings followed by vocabulary and comprehension exercises. These can then be supplemented with additional information from the Internet, newspapers and other sources. However, another approach is to use specially constructed source books which contain collections of authentic materials or simplified versions. These can be about a particular theme such as drug use or care of the elderly, or about more general topics. It's possible to create some really interesting classroom materials as long as the need for comprehensibility is not forgotten.

Readability
The Flesch-Kincaid test is one method of measuring the readability of writing. Difficulty is assessed by analyzing sentence length and the number of syllables per word. Put simply, short sentences containing words with few syllables are considered to be the easiest to read. The Flesch-Kincaid test can also be used to assess the difficulty of texts for EFL students. For students with scores below TOEFL 500, Flesh - Cinched scores in the range 5.0- 8.0 are appropriate. (By way of comparison this paper has a FleschKincaid rating of 11.1). However, far more detailed research needs to be done in the area of assessing student responses to the readability of adapted materials. For example, the Flesch-Kincaid test assumes that passive constructions are more difficult for students to understand than active ones; however my own preliminary investigations have shown that removing passive verbs and replacing them with active ones does not necessarily make the students feel that the text is any easier to read.

How Can Theme Based CBI Be Assessed?

A theme based CBI course should have both content and language goals. Student progress can then be assessed when classes are underway. Continuous assessment is effective. Daily quizzes can be used to check that content information is getting through to the students and that they are remembering important vocabulary. Longer tests may also be given at mid-term and at the end of the term. Journals are also a useful diagnostic tool. Students can be given time at the end of each class to write a summary of the content of the lesson or to answer a specific question given by the teacher. Another useful exercise is to allow the students to write freely on any topic; teachers can then read their work and assess their progress indirectly. Direct oral feedback during the classes can be useful as long as we are mindful of the proficiency level of the students; it's all too easy to forget how difficult it is to speak a foreign language in front of classmates.

Summary
CBI is an effective method of combining language and content learning. Theme based CBI works well in EFL contexts, and I believe its use will increase as teachers continue

to design new syllabi in response to student needs and interests. As I said at the beginning, I believe that learner motivation increases when students are learning about something, rather than just studying language. Theme based CBI is particularly appealing in this respect because teachers can use almost any content materials that they feel their students will enjoy. What can be better than seeing our students create something and learn language at the same time? The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. IX, No. 2, February 2003 http://iteslj.org/ http://iteslj.org/Articles/Davies-CBI.html

Content-based instruction Submitted by NikPeachey on 13 August, 2003 - 12:00 In recent years content-based instruction has become increasingly popular as a means of developing linguistic ability. It has strong connections to project work, task-based learning and a holistic approach to language instruction and has become particularly popular within the state school secondary (11 - 16 years old) education sector.

What is content-based instruction? What does a content-based instruction lesson look like? What are the advantages of content-based instruction? What are the potential problems? Conclusions

What is content-based instruction? The focus of a CBI lesson is on the topic or subject matter. During the lesson students are focused on learning about something. This could be anything that interests them from a serious science subject to their favourite pop star or even a topical news story or film. They learn about this subject using the language they are trying to learn, rather than their native language, as a tool for developing knowledge and so they develop their linguistic ability in the target language. This is thought to be a more natural way of developing language ability and one that corresponds more to the way we originally learn our first language. What does a content-based instruction lesson look like? There are many ways to approach creating a CBI lesson. This is one possible way.

Preparation o Choose a subject of interest to students. o Find three or four suitable sources that deal with different aspects of the subject. These could be websites, reference books, audio or video of lectures or even real people. During the lesson o Divide the class into small groups and assign each group a small research task and a source of information to use to help them fulfil the task. o Then once they have done their research they form new groups with students that used other information sources and share and compare their information. o There should then be some product as the end result of this sharing of information which could take the form of a group report or presentation of some kind.

What are the advantages of content-based instruction?

It can make learning a language more interesting and motivating. Students can use the language to fulfil a real purpose, which can make students both more independent and confident. Students can also develop a much wider knowledge of the world through CBI which can feed back into improving and supporting their general educational needs. CBI is very popular among EAP (English for Academic Purposes) teachers as it helps students to develop valuable study skills such as note taking, summarising and extracting key information from texts. Taking information from different sources, re-evaluating and restructuring that information can help students to develop very valuable thinking skills that can then be transferred to other subjects. The inclusion of a group work element within the framework given above can also help students to develop their collaborative skills, which can have great social value.

What are the potential problems?

Because CBI isn't explicitly focused on language learning, some students may feel confused or may even feel that they aren't improving their language skills. Deal with this by including some form of language focused follow-up exercises to

help draw attention to linguistic features within the materials and consolidate any difficult vocabulary or grammar points.

Particularly in monolingual classes, the overuse of the students' native language during parts of the lesson can be a problem. Because the lesson isn't explicitly focused on language practice students find it much easier and quicker to use their mother tongue. Try sharing your rationale with students and explain the benefits of using the target language rather than their mother tongue. It can be hard to find information sources and texts that lower levels can understand. Also the sharing of information in the target language may cause great difficulties. A possible way around this at lower levels is either to use texts in the students' native language and then get them to use the target language for the sharing of information and end product, or to have texts in the target language, but allow the students to present the end product in their native language. These options should reduce the level of challenge. Some students may copy directly from the source texts they use to get their information. Avoid this by designing tasks that demand students evaluate the information in some way, to draw conclusions or actually to put it to some practical use. Having information sources that have conflicting information can also be helpful as students have to decide which information they agree with or most believe.

Conclusions While CBI can be both challenging and demanding for the teacher and the students, it can also be very stimulating and rewarding. The degree to which you adopt this approach may well depend on the willingness of your students, the institution in which you work and the availability of resources within your environment. It could be something that your school wants to consider introducing across the curriculum or something that you experiment with just for one or two lessons. Whichever you choose to do I would advise that you try to involve other teachers within your school, particularly teachers from other subjects. This could help you both in terms of finding sources of information and in having the support of others in helping you to evaluate your work. Lastly, try to involve your students. Get them to help you decide what topics and subjects the lessons are based around and find out how they feel this kind of lessons compares to your usual lessons. In the end they will be the measure of your success. Nik Peachey, teacher, trainer and materials writer, The British Council

The term content-based instruction is commonly used to describe approaches to integrating language and content instruction, but it is not always used in the same way. For example, Crandall and Tucker (1990) define it as ...an approach to language instruction that integrates the presentation of topics or tasks from subject matter classes (e.g., math, social studies) within the context of teaching a second or foreign language (p. 187). Curtain and Pesola (1994) use the term in a more restricted way, limiting it to only those ...curriculum concepts being taught through the foreign language ... appropriate to the grade level of the students... (p. 35). Krueger and Ryan (1993b) distinguish between content-based and form-based instruction, and note that the term discipline-based more appropriately captures the integration of language learning with different academic disciplines and contents.

There is also a variety of definitions of content. As can be seen from Crandall and Tuckers definition, content is clearly academic subject matter while Genesee (1994) suggests that content ...need not be academic; it can include any topic, theme or non-language issue of interest or importance to the learners (p. 3). Chaput (1993) defines content as ...any topic of intellectual substance which contributes to the students understanding of language in general, and the target language in particular (p. 150). Met (1999) has proposed that content in content-based programs represents material that is cognitively engaging and demanding for the learner, and is material that extends beyond the target language or target culture (p. 150).

Despite differences in how terms are defined, the diverse characteristics of programs that integrate content and language can be used to determine their position on a continuum that illustrates the relative role of content and language. The continuum is useful in a number of ways. It can highlight how differing definitions of content-based instruction share common features yet are distinguished from one another. It can also suggest key decision points for program planners and implementers, help inform approaches to student assessment, and define roles for teachers and the kinds of teaching skills needed. In this paper, the diversity of definitions applied to programs, models, and approaches will be analyzed to identify what they share and how they differ. In addition, issues such as language outcomes, student assessment, and teacher selection and preparation will be examined.

Content-Based Instruction, Cooperative Learning and CALP Instruction

Content-Based Instruction, Cooperative Learning, and CALP Instruction: Addressing the Whole Education of 7-12 ESL Students
Nicole Troncale1 Teachers College, Columbia University

ABSTRACT

Much more than content-based instruction (CBI) is necessary to meet the needs of 7-12 ESL students. Cooperative learning and cognitive academic language instruction (CALP) instruction should be incorporated into CBI in order for middle and high school students to become selfdirected learners capable of advancing to higher education. All teachers who work with language-minority students, not just ESL teachers, must play a part in helping their students to gain the linguistic ability, content knowledge and academic skills necessary to succeed in their classes and beyond high school.

INTRODUCTION

If ESL teachers want their students to be successful in as well as beyond the ESL classroom, the goal of ESL teaching should be to empower students to become independent learners. In order to do this, teachers need to address their students whole education. This is particularly true at the 7-12 level, where ESL learners require much more than language skills in order to achieve in school and advance to higher education. Content-based instruction (CBI) is an effective means of second language teaching, but it is not enough. Middle and high school ESL students also need skills that foster their independence as learners. With these skills, they can meet the cognitive and academic challenges of high school and go on to be successful in college. Cooperative learning and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) instruction are approaches that can be incorporated into content-based instruction in order to address all of the needs of ESL students. In this paper, I will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of contentbased

instruction, cooperative learning and CALP instruction and show evidence from research and my own teaching experience to support these approaches. Finally, I will argue that certain changes are needed in order for these approaches to contribute to the whole education of 7-12 ESL students.
Nicole Troncale is currently teaching ESL/Civics at Bronx Community College. In September, 2002 she will be teaching ESL/Literacy at I.S. 90 in Washington Heights. Correspondence should be sent to Nicole Troncale, 31-15 21st Ave., Apt. 4-J, Astoria, N.Y. 11105. Email: nicoletroncale@aol.com. Content-Based Instruction, Cooperative Learning and CALP Instruction
1

CONTENT-BASED INSTRUCTION (CBI)

Although CBI alone does not lead directly to learner independence, one of its primary strengths is that approaches that do foster independent learning can be incorporated into CBI. Another strength of CBI is that it can be implemented in a variety of teaching contexts. CBI has been proven effective in programs for English for Specific Purposes (ESP), vocational and workplace education, K-12 classrooms in both first and second language learning, bilingual education, sheltered instruction, and college-level foreign language instruction. Factors that demonstrate its success include high teacher and student interest, program enrollment, and student adjustment to future academic contexts (Grabe & Stoller, 1997). Underlying CBIs success is what Oxford and Scarcella (1992) call depth of learning-the notion that if students are actively engaged in meaningful, related theme-based tasks, they gain repeated exposure to language that helps them to process the language (p. 6). Both Cummins (1994) and Grabe and Stoller (1997) note that Krashens (1983) comprehensible input hypothesis gives support to CBI. This hypothesis states that, We acquire by understanding language a bit beyond our current level of competence. This is done with the help of context (Krashen & Terrell, 1983, p. 37). This hypothesis supports the context-embedded language teaching prescribed by CBI. Snow, Met and Genesee (1989) use the image of cognitive hangers to express the need for language

structures to be taught in a meaningful context. Integrating content and language provides students with repeated, natural exposure to the language which mirrors the environment of first language acquisition. CBI also offers a variety of opportunities to engage in meaningful communication with others (Met, 1991; Snow, Met, & Genesee, 1989). Finally, CBI is beneficial to 7-12 ESL students who are expected to learn subject matter knowledge as they are acquiring English. For these students it does not make sense to postpone the teaching of content material until after they have learned English (Grabe & Stoller, 1997). In fact, learning language through content provides an opportunity to teach academic tasks and higher order thinking skills (Met, 1991). Thus, the integrated teaching of language and content is not only beneficial for ESL students, but also necessary for students overall success in school. Several research studies support the integration of content and language in second language learning and overall academic achievement for ESL students. Raphan and Moser (1993/94) provide positive evidence in the form of student responses to a college-level class combining language and content instruction in art history. Kasper (1994, 1995/96) demonstrates more empirical data from studies involving ESL students in paired ESL reading classes and mainstream psychology classes at a community college. The results show that more students who were in the paired classes passed the ESL reading class than those who were only in the ESL reading class. The students in the paired classes also scored significantly higher on the final reading assessment test. Kasper (1997) did a follow-up study with these same subjects to track their performance in subsequent mainstream classes. Comparing students who had taken paired ESL and content classes to those who had taken ESL classes alone, she shows that the students from paired classes scored higher on both reading and writing assessment tests. More students from paired classes progressed to the mainstream composition class. Of those students, many

more from the paired class passed the composition course and overall, they received higher grades in the course. Finally, the study demonstrates that more students from paired classes go on to graduate. These studies indicate both the short-term effectiveness and long-term benefits of integrating language teaching with content instruction.
Content-Based Instruction, Cooperative Learning and CALP Instruction

3 Despite the many benefits of content-based instruction, it also has shortcomings. McKeon (1994) has pointed out that CBI is not enough because ESL students face a greater cognitive challenge than native speakers when learning content in their second language. Middle and high school ESL students require academic skills in conjunction with language and content in order to be successful. These skills include higher order thinking skills, learning strategies and CALP (Grabe & Stoller, 1997). Kinsella (1997) has criticized CBI for being too teacher driven. She argues that ESL teachers adjust teaching materials to make them accessible to their students rather than teaching their students the skills of learning on their own. She states that, despite the effectiveness of CBI in contextualizing language and making input comprehensible, this practice does not create independent learners: These modifications of instructional delivery place the bulk of the responsibility on the teacher, and while facilitating short-term comprehension, they do not necessarily contribute to the ESL students ability to confidently and competently embark on independent learning endeavors (pp. 50-51). Kinsella goes on to say that ESL teachers who fail to do more than make their lessons engaging and understandable inadvertently act as institutional gatekeepers. As long as ESL teachers do the work of making material accessible, their students will not gain the skills needed to approach the material independently. CBI alone, without the integration of academic skills instruction, does not foster self-directed learners. In not teaching them how to be autonomous learners, it fails to prepare them for learning outside of the ESL classroom.

In my personal experience in teaching at a high school, as well as at the elementary level and with adult learners, I have also seen evidence of the strengths and weaknesses of contentbased instruction. In my experience at the high school level, no systematic coordination exists between teachers of content area subjects and ESL teachers. In general, ESL teachers, including myself, choose thematic unit topics without taking into consideration the needs of students in content area classes. Thus, we miss out on an opportunity to help our students in the classes where they most need support. I have also observed many positive results to teaching thematic units. First, I have noticed that student interest is higher throughout all activities of the unit than when doing activities that are not related by a common theme. Students are more enthusiastic about, and therefore, more successful with reading and writing activities in thematic units because these skills are easier to accomplish when the topic is context-embedded and students have ample background knowledge about it. Students retention of vocabulary, language structures and key concepts is also better in thematic units. I believe that this is due to the recycling of language and ideas throughout the unit and to the fact that activities address a range of learning styles and include hands-on and interactive group work. CBI lends itself to the incorporation of group work, particularly cooperative learning, which is an effective way of teaching content and language.

COOPERATIVE LEARNING

The main strength of cooperative learning is that it is studentcentered. It promotes learner independence by encouraging students to learn from each other, not just from the teacher. Richard-Amato (1996) makes the association between cooperative learning and the theoretical
Content-Based Instruction, Cooperative Learning and CALP Instruction

4 foundations of education put forth by Freire and Vygotsky. In concurrence with Freires (1970, 1988) notion of libertarian education, cooperative learning allows for flexible roles between the

teacher and students. McGroarty (1989) notes the problem of traditional teacher and student roles: [R]eliance on transmission of knowledge through teacher presentation may thus retard the academic progress of students who learn best through other group settings and other approaches to knowledge where they can draw on their ability to interact with each other and with curriculum materials (p. 59). Academic progress involves learning from peers. While teachers do most of the talking in traditional classrooms, cooperative learning groups give students the opportunity to apply new information, including linguistic knowledge, which is particularly important for ESL students (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 1999). Richard-Amato also points out that, although Vygotsky (1978, cited in Richard-Amato, 1996), like Freire, did not directly address second language learning, his idea that not all learning comes from the teacher lends support to cooperative learning. He claimed that learning also takes place in collaboration with peers. Cooperative learning builds on both Freires and Vygotskys beliefs in that it is student-centered and it encourages students to gain independence from the teacher. Cooperative learning encourages ESL students to become responsible learners who are actively involved in their acquisition of linguistic and content knowledge at the same time that they become aware of their roles as members of a class community. Evidence from research demonstrates the multiple benefits of cooperative learning. Findings from 25 different studies (Slavin, 1980) show that cooperative learning techniques are more effective than traditional ones for student achievement. The studies show that the aspects of structure, individual accountability and group rewards increase lower level learning outcomes, and that higher level learning outcomes are also improved by the components of autonomy and group decision-making. In addition to cognitive improvements, the studies also reveal affective

benefits. Cooperative learning results in students feeling greater mutual concern for each other and an overall greater liking of school, as compared to students who receive traditional teaching techniques. Cooperative learning also improves race relations and individual student selfesteem. Higher achievement in students who learn through cooperative learning is found across ability levels, grade levels and subject areas, including second language learning (Slavin, 1986). In light of all these positive effects, Slavin (1980) proposes that cooperative learning not just supplement traditional teaching methods, but take the place of them. Others have argued that the very same elements of cooperative learning that Slavin finds so effective contribute to its weaknesses. Randall (1999) believes that placing the responsibility of student learning on other students is unfair and unrealistic: It would be handy if our democratic ideals could guarantee that students would learn equally or work equally, but they do not. We place too great a burden on children and teens not only by making them responsible for each others learning (Can you ultimately be responsible for anyones learning besides your own?), but also by grading them on how much other students learn (p. 15).
Content-Based Instruction, Cooperative Learning and CALP Instruction

5 Because students do not learn equally, Randall finds that holding students accountable for their own learning is the only fair way to assign grades. Randall further disagrees with the cooperative learning practice of grouping students of mixed ability levels. She cites research from mathematics classes showing that high-achieving students become bored of explaining material to low-achieving students and that low-achieving students become passive members of the group (Mulryan, 1994, cited in Randall, 1999). Another weakness of cooperative learning is found in research comparing whole class instruction and cooperative learning in the teaching of higher order thinking skills (Ross, 1988). The results contradict Slavins previous findings in

showing cooperative learning to be slightly less effective than whole class instruction, particularly in promoting problem-solving skills. These weaknesses of cooperative learning may be due not to cooperative learning itself, but to the way that it is implemented. As with CBI, cooperative learning is weakened by the fact that it is not systematically put in place. The definition of cooperative learning varies among different teachers, schools and school districts, so that it does not look the same everywhere (Walsh, personal communication). Some teachers may simply consider cooperative learning to be group work. If this disparity did not exist, and if teachers across the various content areas implemented cooperative learning in the same way, they would find it to be an essential learning tool of a student-centered classroom. In my teaching experience at the high school level, I have not found problems with cooperative learning, but with other teachers willingness to implement it. Because the structures of cooperative learning foster independent learning and address the academic and linguistics skills of students as well as their social and emotional development, teaching the procedures of these structures is complex and time-consuming. The structures on which different activities are based include team building, class building, communication building, mastery, and concept development (Valdez-Pierce, 1992). Some teachers may see it as a weakness that these structures require practice for students to become familiar with the procedures. They might also fear that they will lose control of the class or that students will not take seriously their responsibility toward their peers. In fact, in my experience, this is not the case and, on the contrary, when given responsibility, students enthusiastically take on the opportunity to teach and learn from each other. I have found that cooperative learning is worth the energy it takes to put into place because it gives teachers access to a repertoire of structures that promote self-directed learning and can be used with multiple content areas.

CALP INSTRUCTION
In addition to cooperative learning, CALP instruction is an essential element to be incorporated into CBI in order for 7-12 ESL students to acquire the academic skills they need to become independent learners. Kinsella (1997) refers to the skill of learning to learn as indispensable to ESL students if they are not just to learn content and language, but also to tackle the next textbook chapter on their own, take effective lecture notes, prepare for an upcoming exam, expand their academic English vocabulary, or competently answer an essay question (p. 52). Short (1991) also notes that these same skills of attacking academic tasks independently are demanded of students when they are mainstreamed. In the teaching of reading to ESL students, Dubin and Bycina (1991) point out the importance of providing the skills and strategies needed to become efficient, effective and independent readers (p. 202). Grabe and Stoller (1997) emphasize the necessity of CALP instruction in CBI when they write, CALP is
Content-Based Instruction, Cooperative Learning and CALP Instruction

6 the language of content instruction (p. 8). In order for ESL teachers to enable their students to be successful, independent learners outside of the ESL classroom, CALP must be a part of their instruction. Several research studies demonstrate the need for CALP instruction in the overall academic success of ESL learners. Saville-Troike (1984) found that one of the most important factors for the achievement of ESL students to be CALP instruction in the first language. Both Cummins (1981) and Collier (1987) discovered that with CALP instruction in the second language, it takes students a minimum of five years to reach native speaker norms at the 50th percentile on standardized tests. Collier found this to be the case even for students with schooling in their home countries. For students with no schooling in their home countries, she showed that 7 to 8 years of CALP instruction is necessary in order for students to reach the same

percentile. With no CALP instruction, ESL students do not have enough time in high school to catch up academically. This is the case for students with and without schooling in their home countries. Collier (1989) notes the implications of this research: It appears that secondary students cannot afford the loss of 2 to 3 years of academic instruction while they are mastering basic L2, if their expectations are to compete successfully with native speakers who plan to pursue a university degree (p. 520). Collier refers to an assumption in education that once ESL students learn basic English skills, they will be able to achieve in school. The research shows that this is not the case. Regardless of their educational background in their home countries, ESL students require CALP instruction along with basic language skills in order to become successful learners in high school and college. ESL teachers, then, face the responsibility of teaching not just language skills, but also the academic skills which students need to achieve in all their classes. Kinsella (1997) has pointed out that it is unfair to place all the responsibility of ESL students academic skills on ESL teachers. Both she and McKeon (1994) note that, although many ESL teachers incorporate CALP instruction in their teaching, as with CBI and cooperative learning, there is no systematic program of CALP instruction in place. Kinsella (1997) argues that all who work with non-native speakers of English should share the responsibility: It is not realistic for the ESL instructor alone to take the initiative and shoulder the responsibility for comprehensively preparing English language learners for the varied demands of mainstream curricula. Students who spend the school day in diverse content classrooms, lacking full English proficiency as well as subject matter background knowledge, need every teacher to demystify learning by sharing the academic secrets of successful students in their respective disciplines (p. 53). More systematic planning is crucial not only for content area teachers to become involved in

CALP instruction, but also for more ESL teachers to be convinced of the need to teach their students through more traditional methods. Kinsella notes that many ESL teachers employ only progressive teaching approaches because they perceive them to be more effective in language learning. But Met (1994) states that it is, important that second language teachers be defined as teachers of academic language (p. 178). ESL teachers need to use both traditional and progressive instruction if their students are to gain the academic competence which will help them in all their classes.
Content-Based Instruction, Cooperative Learning and CALP Instruction

7 Reflecting on my personal experience, I realize that my teaching of CALP could have been much more effective. To some extent, I am guilty of committing the same error that Kinsella (1997) points out in many ESL teachers. When using reading passages, I made the material accessible for my students, rather than teaching them the skills of how to tackle the reading independently. On the other hand, I taught my students the academic skills of lecture note-taking and test preparation. Although these learning to learn skills are necessary for success in all their classes, my students had not previously learned these skills explicitly. Their lack of experience with these basic academic skills underlines the need for some systematic implementation of CALP instruction for high school ESL students.

CONCLUSION

Enabling ESL students to become self-directed learners, then, requires addressing their whole education. This involves instruction in language, content and academic skills. But certain changes must occur for the approaches of CBI, cooperative learning, and CALP instruction to be completely effective. It is necessary for not just ESL teachers, but for all teachers who work with language minority students, to play a part in teaching them the skills to become independent learners. Students deserve to know what Kinsella (1997) calls the academic secrets of each

subject area they are studying. In order for ESL students to become equipped with the skills they need to be successful in all their classes, all teachers who work with ESL students should redefine their responsibilities toward students and their relationships with other teachers (Met, 1994). Once teachers realize that they are all teachers of language as well as content (Cummins, 1994), they can work together systematically. Teachers first need to reach out to each other in order to help their students to gain the linguistic, content and academic skills and knowledge necessary in order to succeed in all their classes and beyond high school.

REFERENCES

Collier, V. P. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 617-641. Collier, V. P. (1989). How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 509-531. Cummins, J. (1981). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada: A reassessment. Applied Linguistics, 2, 131-149. Cummins, J. (1994). Knowledge, power and identity in teaching English as a second language. In F. Genesee (Ed.), Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole community (pp. 33-58). New York: Cambridge University Press. Dubin, F. & Bycina, D. (1991). Academic reading and the ESL/EFL teacher. In M. CelceMurcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 195-209). New York: Newbury House. Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (2000). Making content comprehensible for English language learners: The SIOP model. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Freire, P. (1970/88). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Content-Based Instruction, Cooperative Learning and CALP Instruction

8 Grabe, W. & Stoller, F. (1997). Content-based instruction: Research foundations. In M. A. Snow & D. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 5-20). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Kasper, L. F. (1994). Improved reading performance for ESL students through academic course pairing. Journal of Reading, 37, 376-84. Kasper, L. F. (1995/96). Using discipline-based texts to boost college ESL reading instruction. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 39, 298-306. Kasper, L. F. (1997). The impact of content-based instructional programs on the academic progress of ESL students. English for Specific Purposes, 16, 309-320. Kinsella, K. (1997). Moving from comprehensible input to learning to learn in CBI. In M. A. Snow & D. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 46-57). White Plains, NY: Longman. Krashen, S. D. & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. San Francisco: The Alemany Press. McGroarty, M. (1992). Cooperative learning: The benefits for contentarea teaching. In P. A. Richard-Amato & M. A. Snow (Eds.), The multicultural classroom: Readings for contentarea teachers (pp. 58-69). White Plains, NY: Longman. McKeon, D. (1994). When meeting common standards is uncommonly difficult. Educational Leadership, 51, 45-49. Met, M. (1991). Learning language through content: Learning content through language. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 281-295. Met, M. (1994). Teaching content through a second language. In F. Genesee (Ed.), Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole community (pp. 159-182). New York: Cambridge University Press. Richard-Amato, P. A. (1996). Making it happen: Interaction in the second language classroom. White Plains, NY: Longman. Randall, V. (1999). Cooperative learning: Abused and overused? Gifted Child Today Magazine, 22 (2), 14-16. Raphan, D. & Moser, J. (1993/94). Linking language and content: ESL and art history. TESOL Journal, 3, 17-21. Ross, J. (1988). Improving social-environmental studies problem solving through cooperative learning. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 573-591.

Saville-Troike, M. (1984). What really matters in second language learning for academic achievement? TESOL Quarterly, 18, 199-219. Scarcella, R. & Oxford, R. (1992). The tapestry of language learning: The individual in the communicative classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Short, D. (1991). Integrating language and content instruction: Strategies and techniques. NCBE Program Information Guide Series, 7, 1-23. Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50, 2, 315-342. Slavin, R. E. (1986). Learning together. American Educator, 10, 6-13. 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, 201217. Valdez-Pierce, L. (1992). Cooperative learning for students from diverse cultural backgrounds. ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics Center for Applied Linguistic Digest.

Content-Based Second Language Instruction: What is it? Origins and Definitions

Although it is most often associated with the genesis of language immersion education in Canada in 1965, content-based instruction is hardly a new phenomenon. We know that "until the rise of nationalism, few languages other than those of the great empires, religions, and civilizations were considered competent or worthy to carry the content of a formal curriculum" (Swain & Johnson, 1997, p. 1). CBI is "...the integration of particular content with language teaching aims...the concurrent teaching of academic subject matter and second language skills" (Brinton et al., 1989, p. 2). CBI approaches "...view the target language largely as the vehicle through which subject matter content is learned rather than as the immediate object of study" (Brinton et al., 1989, p. 5).

CBI is aimed at 'the development of use-oriented second and foreign language skills' and is 'distinguished by the concurrent learning of a specific content and related language use skills' (Wesche, 1993). CBI is "...an approach to language instruction that integrates the presentation of topics or tasks from subject matter classes (e.g., math, social studies) within the context of teaching a second or foreign language" (Crandall & Tucker, 1990, p. 187).

What qualifies as 'content' in CBI?

Curtain and Pesola (1994) limit the definition of CBI to those "...curriculum concepts being taught through the foreign language ... appropriate to the grade level of the students..." (p. 35). Genesee (1994) suggests that content '...need not be academic; it can include any topic, theme, or non-language issue of interest or importance to the learners' (p. 3). Met (1991) proposes that "... 'content' in content-based programs represents material that is cognitively engaging and demanding for the learner, and is material that extends beyond the target language or target culture" (p. 150). "...what we teach in any kind of content-based course is not the content itself but some form of the discourse of that contentnot, for example, 'literature' itself (which can only be experienced) but how to analyze literature...for every body of content that we recognize as suchlike the physical world or human cultural behaviorthere is a discourse communitylike physics or anthropologywhich provides us with the means to analyze, talk about, and write about that content...Thus, for teachers the problem is how to acculturate students to the relevant discourse communities, and for students the problem is how to become acculturated to those communities" (Eskey, 1997, pp. 139-140). "...it is not so much the content itself, in terms of factual knowledge, but some form of the discourse of that content as it is constructed in the German-speaking world that is being taught...that means that it is critical that we explicitly teach on the basis of the assumptions, conventions, and procedures of their own L1 discourse communities (usually U.S.American and English language) and toward the assumptions, conventions, and procedures of the L2=German language discourse communities" (Georgetown German Dept. website).

Content-Based Second Language Instruction: Rationale

Grabe & Stoller (1997) provide a detailed analysis of research to support content-based second language instruction. The key points of their analysis are summarized below in the categories they used to organize the findings. Additional research not cited in Grabe & Stoller is also included. Support from SLA research:

Natural language acquisition occurs in context; natural language is never learned divorced from meaning, and content-based instruction provides a context for meaningful communication to occur (Curtain, 1995; Met, 1991); second language acquisition increases with content-based language instruction, because students learn language best when there is an emphasis on relevant, meaningful content rather than on the language itself; "People do not learn languages and then use them, but learn languages by using them" (GUGD website) [see Georgetown stats]; however, both form and meaning are important and are not readily separable in language learning (e.g., Lightbrown & Spada, 1993; Met, 1991; Wells, 1994). CBI promotes negotiation of meaning, which is known to enhance language acquisition (students should negotiate both form and content) (Lightbrown & Spada, 1993). Second language acquisition is enhanced by comprehensible input (Krashen, 1982; 1985), which is a key pedagogical technique in content-based instruction; however, comprehensible input alone does not sufficestudents need formfocused content instruction (an explicit focus on relevant and contextually appropriate language forms to support content learning) (Lyster, 1987; Met, 1991; Swain, 1985). Cummins' (1981) notion of Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) as contrasted with Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) shows that students need to be learning content while they are developing CALP; there is not enough time to separate language and content learning; postponing content instruction while students develop more advanced (academic) language is not only impractical, but it also ignores students' needs, interests, and cognitive levels (consider severe time constraints on language study prescribed by U.S. higher education, Byrnes, 2000). CBI provides opportunities for Vygotskian-based concepts thought to contribute to second language acquisitionnegotiation in the Zone of Proximal Development, the use of "private speech" (internally directed speech for problemsolving and rehearsal), and student appropriation of learning tasks (e.g., Lantolf, 1994; Lantolf & Appel, 1994). Language learning becomes more concrete rather than abstract (as in traditional language instruction where the focus is on the language itself) (Genesee, 1994).

The integration of language and content in instruction respects the specificity of functional language use (it recognizes that meaning changes depending upon context) (Genesee, 1994). More sophisticated, complex language is best taught within a framework that focuses on complex and authentic content.

Research on Instructional Strategies that Support CBI and SLA

CBI lends itself to cooperative learning, which has been shown to result in improved learning (Slavin, 1995; Crandall, 1993). CBI approaches, which promote the importance of learning strategies, provide the curricular resources for development of the strategic language and content learner (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990). CBI lends itself to the incorporation of a variety of thinking skills, and learning strategies which lead to rich language development, e.g., information gathering skillsabsorbing, questioning; organizing skillscategorizing, comparing, representing; analyzing skillsidentifying main ideas, identifying attributes and components, identifying relationships, patterns; generating skillsinferring, predicting, estimating (ASCD, Dimensions of Thinking) (Curtain, 1995; Met, 1991). Research on extensive reading in a second language shows that reading coherent extended materials leads to improved language abilities, greater content-area learning, and higher motivation (Elley, 1991); the Georgetown German program has based the curriculum on texts and genre and report exciting results in students' speaking and writing proficiency (see program evaluation).

Support for CBI from Educational and Cognitive Psychology

Anderson (1990; 1993) has proposed a cognitive learning theory for instruction that integrates attention to content and language. In this theory skills (including language) and knowledge follow a general sequence of states of learning from the cognitive stage (students notice and attend to information in working memory; they engage in solving basic problems with the language and concepts they're acquiring) to the associative stage (errors are corrected and connections to related knowledge are strengthened; knowledge and skills become proceduralized) to the autonomous stage (performance becomes automatic, requiring little attentional effort; in this stage cognitive resources are feed up for the next cycle of problem solving, concept learning).

The presentation of coherent and meaningful information leads to deeper processing, which results in better learning (Anderson, 1990) and information that is more elaborated is learned and recalled better. Information that has a greater number of connections to related information promotes better learning (it is more likely that content will have a greater number of connections to other information) (Anderson, 1990). Facts and skills taught in isolation need much more practice and rehearsal before they can be internalized or put into long term memory; coherently presented information (thematically organized) is easier to remember and leads to improved learning (Singer, 1990); information that has a greater number of connections to related information enhances learning, and content acts as the driving force for the connections to be made.

Content-based instruction develops a wider range of discourse skills than does traditional language instruction (because of the incorporation of higher cognitive skills); Byrnes (2000) notes the increasing demands for high levels of literacy in languages other than English.

When planned thoughtfully, content-based activities have the possibility of leading to "flow experiences," i.e., optimal experiences the emerge when personal skills are matched by high challenge (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, in Grabe & Stoller, 1997 and Stoller, 2002) - see graphic.

Content-based instruction provides for cognitive engagement; tasks that are intrinsically interesting and cognitively engaging will lead to more and better opportunities for second language acquisition; this is particularly important when one considers the inherent complexity of adult learning (Byrnes, 2000). Content-based instruction emphasizes a connection to real life, real world skills (Curtain, 1995); in content-based classes, students have more opportunities to use the content knowledge and expertise they bring to class (they activate their prior knowledge, which leads to increased learning of language and content material).

Program Outcomes that Support CBI

Research conducted in a variety of program models (see Grabe and Stoller, 1997 for details) has shown that content-based instruction results in language learning, content learning, increased motivation and interest levels, and greater opportunities for employment (where language abilities are necessary)the research has emerged in ESL K-12 contexts , FL K-12 (immersion and bilingual programs), post-secondary FL and ESL contexts, and FLAC programs.

CBI allows for greater flexibility to be built into the curriculum and activities; there are more opportunities to adjust to the needs and interests of students. The integration of language and content throughout a sequence of language levels has the potential to address the challenge of gaps between basic language study vs. advanced literature and cultural studies that often exist in university language departments.

Sources: 1995 video entitled "Helena Curtain: Integrating Language and Content Instruction," available through the NFLRC Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa. Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications (3rd ed.). NY: W. H. Freeman. Anderson, J. R. (1993). Problem solving and learning. American Psychologist, 48, 35-44. Brinton, D., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-based second language instruction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Byrnes, H. (2000). Languages across the curriculuminterdepartmental curriculum construction. In M-R. Kecht & K. von Hammerstein (Eds.), Languages across the curriculum: Interdisciplinary structures and internationalized education. National East Asian Languages Resource Center. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. Crandall, J. (1993). Content-centered learning in the United States. In W. Grabe, C. Ferguson, R. B. Kaplan, G. R. Tucker, & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13. Issues in second language teaching and learning (pp. 111-126). NY: Cambridge University Press. Crandall, J., & Tucker, G. R. (1990). Content-based instruction in second and foreign languages. In A. Padilla, H. H. Fairchild, & C. Valadez (Eds.), Foreign language education: Issues and strategies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Curtain, H. A., & Pesola, C. A. (1994). Languages and children: Making the match (2nd ed.). NY: Longman. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: Harper Collins.

Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3-49). Los Angeles: California State University, Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center. Elley, W. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-based programs. Language Learning, 41, 375-411. Eskey, D. E. (1997). Syllabus design in content-based instruction. In M. A. Snow & D. A. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 132-141). White Plains, NY: Longman. Genesee, F. (1994). Integrating language and content: Lessons from immersion. Educational Practice Report 11. National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (1997). Content-based instruction: Research foundations. In M. A. Snow, & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 5-21). NY: Longman. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. NY: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. NY: Longman. Lantolf, J. (1994). (Ed.) Sociocultural theory and second language learning. [Special issue of The Modern Language Journal, 78(4).] Lantolf, J. & Appel, G. (Eds.) Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Lightbrown, P.M. & Spada, N. (1993). How languages are learned. NY: Oxford University Press. Lyster, R. (1987). Speaking immersion. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 43(4), 701-717. Met, M. (1991). Learning language through content: Learning content through language. Foreign Language Annals, 24(4), 281-295. Met. M. (1999, January). Content-based instruction: Defining terms, making decisions. NFLC Reports. Washington, DC: The National Foreign Language Center. O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. NY: Cambridge University Press.

Singer, M. (1990). Psychology of language: An introduction to sentence and discourse processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Stoller, F. (2002, March). Content-Based Instruction: A Shell for Language Teaching or a Framework for Strategic Language and Content Learning? Keynote presented at the annual meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Salt Lake City. (full transcript available at the CoBaLTT website). Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Swain, M. & Johnson, R.K. (1997). Immersion education: A category within bilingual education. In R. K. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.) Immersion Education: International Perspectives (pp. 1-16). NY: Cambridge University Press. Wells, G. (1994). The complementary contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky to a "language-based theory of learning." Linguistics and Education, 6, 41-90. Wesche, M. B. (1993). Discipline-based approaches to language study: Research issues and outcomes. In M. Krueger & F. Ryan (Eds.) Language and content: Discipline- and content-based approaches to language study. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

A thematic approach to teaching and learning

What is a thematic approach? This is a way of teaching and learning, whereby many areas of the curriculum are connected together and integrated within a theme. It allows learning to be more natural and less fragmented than the way where a school day is time divided into different subject areas and practice exercises frequently relate to nothing other than what the teacher thinks up, as he or she writes them on the chalk board. It allows literacy to grow progressively, with vocabulary linked and with spelling and sentence writing being frequently, yet smoothly, reinforced. It guides connected ideas to follow on easily. It is, after all, how we, as adults, learn new things. Don't we start at a point of interest and branch out from it like ripples from a stone thrown in the water?

The result of working the thematic approach way is that often children: will have fun, will be more actively involved, will develop learning skills more quickly as each one is connected to and reinforced by the other, will be more confident and better motivated, will present fewer discipline problems. The result of working the thematic approach way is that often teachers: will find teaching more fun, will find teaching less hard work. but will still find teaching exhausting!

Using a Thematic Approach

The Start with the Arts program is organized around thematic units. The themes represent typical topics that are often the focus of early childhood curriculum units. During the early years, theme topics generally pertain to children's life experiences and interests. By selecting topics of high interest to children, the opportunities for active involvement in the process of learning are increased. Organizing curriculum around a theme allows for curriculum content and learning processes to be addressed within a meaningful context. Today's early childhood specialists stress the importance of presenting curriculum in an integrated format, rather than spending short periods of time focusing on separate subject or content areas (Day & Drake, 1986; Katz, 1990). This view point is further supported by The National Association of Elementary School Principals (1990). They have identified as an indicator of quality early childhood programs the organization of the curriculum around thematic units. The theme approach includes activities in language arts, social studies, creative dramatics, music, art, science, math, or any combination of these. Many teachers and curriculum specialists have developed thematic units that incorporate content and process objectives from several content areas and heavily infuse

them with the language arts processes of oral language, listening, reading, and writing (Tchudi, 1991; Varnon, 1991). The themes chosen for the Start with the Arts program reflect topics which are typically covered in early childhood classrooms. The purpose of selecting common themes is to increase the probability that teachers will find it appropriate and convenient to integrate the activities into the current curriculum. This approach of selecting themes that are commonly used by teachers, increases the likelihood of the activities being integrated into existing classroom experiences (McGarry, 1986). It is important to note that while the Start with the Arts unit activities can "stand alone," learning will be enhanced and integrated for children when the activities are directly linked to the existing curriculum. The topics selected for the thematic units in Start with the Arts are broad in scope and provide a selection of activities that can be tailored to fit into most early childhood programs. The thematic units allow for teacher ingenuity and creativity and encourage the adaptation of the curriculum to the needs of students. The topics directly concern children and the need to capitalize on their interests as they learn about themselves and their environment. Teacher flexibility and adaptation in the use of this program is encouraged and a particular topic in any given activity can be substituted for another. For example, the teacher selects an activity that involves learning about trains. But, the children live in an urban area and have little, if any, knowledge about trains. Moreover, subway systems are being covered in the district's unit of study, but not trains. Here is an example where the subway system could easily be substituted for trains and still maintain the integrity of the activity. In science, the class may be studying weather and its effect on the environment. The Start with the Arts activity entitled, "Rain Again?" may be used to further extend children's learning of weather and provides a rich resource for vocabulary, concept and oral development as they create and discuss their water color paintings of rain. In making adaptations, it is important to select activities which support children's prior learning. Although the activities can double as "stand alone" art activities, their true value will be realized when they are used in the context of promoting literacy. The goal of each activity in the program is to provide children with many opportunities to advance their art skills and conceptual knowledge, while facilitating the development of their communication and literacy skills and promoting positive attitudes toward themselves and learning. To illustrate, a brief description of five thematic units follows.
Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology Proc. of the First Int. Conference on Concept Mapping A. J. Caas, J. D. Novak, F. M. Gonzlez, Eds. Pamplona, Spain 2004

USING A THEMATIC APPROACH AND CONCEPT MAPS IN TECHNOLOGICAL COURSES

Evandro Cant, Federal Center of Technological Education of Santa Catarina, Brazil Jean Marie Farines & Jos Andr Angotti, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil

E-mail: cantu@sj.cefetsc.edu.br, farines@das.ufsc.br, angotti@ced.ufsc.br

Abstract. In this article we combine the use of a thematic approach and concept maps to propose a methodological approach for technology courses, in our case, computer networks. The thematic approach offers a good way to increase students motivation and presents a new way of elaborating a curriculum. The concept maps, which are the principal tool of the assimilation theory, help in the organization of contents, facilitating the process of concept acquisition by learners. These ideas are synthesized in a Web application which can be used as an aid or guide for teachers and learners of computer networks to organize and to improve their educational activities.

1 Introduction In a traditional teaching approach, the curriculum is organized by following the classical structure of the programmatic contents of a course in a rigorous way. The contents are previously divided into topics and presented sequentially and in depth to the students. In a domain with a continuous change of the technological contents, as the computer networks domain, this approach causes some problems. On the one hand, we always have some new knowledge to add into the curriculum. On the other hand, the lifetime of a specific piece of knowledge has been decreasing and its duration lasts no longer than a few years; consequently, we have to worry about the knowledge obsolescence. Furthermore, the high complexity and the great diversity of the contents related to computer networks makes it difficult to select and organize the contents to be taught. In order to organize the contents, many computer networks textbooks divide the contents based on the layers of network architecture, like in (Tanenbaum, 2003). This way of organization largely influenced the teachers of computer networks during the last years. A common approach to explore the contents was to cover the layers in a bottom-up manner, starting from the physical media and finishing with the network applications. Frequently, the network applications were not discussed due to the lack of time and also because they were not considered important. The rigid pedagogical material of textbooks, associated with the high complexity and the great diversity of the contents, did not motivate the students, imposing great difficulties for them to understand concepts and relate the topics under study with real applications. With the aim of dealing with these questions, we present in this paper a methodological approach to improve the teaching or learning of computer networks. Our approach combines the use of a thematic approach and concept maps. The thematic approach is presented in the second section, where we emphasize its benefits in helping the selection of the contents and in students motivation. The concept maps, which are the principal tool of the assimilation theory, are presented in the third section, where we show how we used them to construct a knowledge representation of the computer networks domain to facilitate the process of concept acquisition by learners. In the fourth section we discuss the teachers role and the didactic materials. Finally, in the fifth section, we comment about a Web application that synthesizes our approach, which can be used as an aid or guide for teachers and students of computer networks to organize and to improve their activities. 2 The thematic approach The thematic approach, proposed by Freire (1981), suggests that learning activities must be developed around generative themes that are part of the students cultural environment. These generative themes increase students motivation and allow them to extend their knowledge about the subject, including social and political factors that can contribute to form complete citizens with critical minds. The appeal imposed by the new technological systems, in particular over the young people, and the

discussion about the impacts of technology on society are two important requirements to select the generative themes to anchor the educational process (Delizoicov et al., 2003). This idea is close to the suggestions of the movement known as Science, Technology and Society (STS), which studies the origins, nature, and social impacts of science and technology. According to Delizoicov, et al. (2003), a thematic approach presents a rupture in the way curricula have been elaborated, since they are strongly based on the scientific and technological contents, and organized in a rigid and systematic manner. In a dynamic domain, with a lot of contents, the thematic approach is a good criterion for helping in the selection of contents. If we take into account our domain of interest, computer networks, we can see that the Internet matches the requirements to be selected as generative themes. The Internet, after the emergence of the World Wide Web, got into the homes and business of millions of people worldwide. These changes have also been reflected in the peoples way of life, where the Internet access has been considered, particularly in developing countries, an important point for the social inclusion. Considering only the technical aspects of current computer networks, the Internet, along with local area networks, are the dominant technologies. Many other standards and technologies used in the 1980s and 1990s have been decreasing or becoming obsolete. Thus, a reasonable approach for a modern computer networks course should focus on the current network technologies and search for the fundamental concepts that allow understanding these technologies. The thematic approach, featuring the Internet, is consistent with this assertion. The approach used by Kurose & Ross (2000) walks in this direction. They innovated with a top-down approach featuring the Internet, which begins with a global view of the Internet and explores the layers, starting at the application layer and working its way down the layers. According to the authors, the top-down approach has several important benefits. It places emphasis on the application layer, which is the high growth area of computer networks. It is a powerful approach to motivate students. It enables instructors to introduce network applications development at an early stage. However, to be more correct with Freires ideas, in a thematic approach, we should include, along with the technical subjects, themes related to the impacts of the information and communication technology on society. To help the teacher in this task, we are constructing a Web application, discussed in the fifth section, where the appropriate didactic materials are associated with the generative themes. 3 Using concept maps for structuring knowledge The thematic approach consists of relating generative themes and concepts, with the themes being the starting point to elaborate the curriculum (Delizoicov, et al., 2003). This process is called thematic reduction in (Freire, 1981) and must be based on the fundamental concepts that allow giving a global vision of the theme. In this sense, in a computer networks course, inverting only the way of exploring the layers is not sufficient. It is also interesting to organize the concepts in order to establish a global and structured view of the theme. The assimilation theory, presented by Ausubel et al. (1980), can help in this task. This educational theory describes how the students construct or acquire concepts and how these concepts are organized in their minds. For the assimilation theory, learning occurs when new information is obtained from a planned effort by the learner to link this information with some relevant concepts already existing in his/her cognitive structure. To

accomplish this task, the suggestion is to start learning from the more general and comprehensive concepts and then move towards more specific ones. In the sequence of studies on assimilation theory, Novak (2003) developed the concept maps, which are a kind of graph used to represent the relationships among a group of concepts. In the concept map representation, concepts are represented in a hierarchical way with the most general and inclusive concepts at the top and the more specific ones organized hierarchically in the bottom. For a concept corresponding to a node, it is also possible to build another concept map with the objective of refining it. According to Novak (2003), concept maps can be helpful to clearly present the material to be learned, identifying the large general concepts prior to instruction and assisting in the sequencing of learning through progressive and more specific and explicit knowledge. Concept maps have been used for a variety of educational purposes (Novak, 2003; Caas et al., 2003). In a domain like computer networks, that has many complex concepts linked in an intricate way, concept maps can be of great help to organize and structure knowledge. The concept map of figure 1 shows an example of a knowledge organization describing some general concepts related to the Internet. The rectangles represent the concepts related to this topic. The links show the relationships between the concepts.
Figure 1. Example of a concept map describing some general concepts related to the Internet.

With the knowledge representation modeled by concept maps it is easier to explore the concepts and technologies in a general-to-specific manner, increasing the complexity along the course. This way of organizing knowledge can also be helpful to solve the conflicts between approaching a theme or topic in scope or in depth, where the hierarchical structure of concept maps always keep the subject under study in the whole, avoiding any possible fragmentation. Although, as the concept map representation allows both breadth-first and deep-first navigation styles, it still remains to the teacher the responsibility of conducting the learning process. 4 The teachers role and the didactic materials According to Delizoicov et al. (2003), the elaboration of didactic materials finishes the process of thematic reduction. Commonly, the principal didactic materials used by teachers are textbooks. However, the teacher is, above all, one that organizes an activity. If the teacher has access to many options of didactic materials, he will have more chances to find the most adequate ones, assuming the responsibilities by his choices and adaptations, or creating new alternatives if necessary. Working this way, the teacher can preserve the creative and pleasurable aspects of his educational activities. In this sense, we developed a Web application where the knowledge representation of computer networks is linked to a repository of didactic materials that could be used by teachers during the development of their activities. Examples of didactic materials included in the repository are: texts for discussions related to generative themes; practical activities and exercises, used to illustrate the application of concepts; analogies and theatre acting, used to facilitate the conceptual understanding; and so on. 5 A Web application to help and guide teachers or learners of computer networks The theoretical discussion developed in this paper has been compiled in a Web application1 constructed in order to help and guide teachers and students to organize and improve their activities. The users can browse on the Web application, searching for information, getting help in planning a specific course in computer networks domain or to be guided during the development of a course. The environment provides access to a knowledge representation of the computer networks domain,

constructed as concept maps, associated with didactic materials and other storage information. Users can also interact with the application by means of tools that allow interactivity. It is possible for users to post suggestions or comments about the information on the Web and to discuss with other users about specific themes. 6 Summary In this paper we presented some methodological guidelines to be applied in computer networks education, stemmed from some modern learning theories. Our methodological approach combines a thematic approach, along with the assimilation theory and concept maps. Web application synthesizes our approach, allowing teachers and learners of computer networks to use this application in order to get some help and guidelines for their work. The application is supported by concept maps, a graphical representation of the relationships among concepts, used to model and organize the knowledge of the application domain. With the concept maps, the knowledge is organized in a hierarchical way, with the most general and comprehensive concepts on the top and the more specific ones arranged in the bottom of the map. This organization facilitates the developing of learning following a general-to-specific manner. Didactic materials are also part of the Web application and can be used by teachers in their activities. 7 References Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D. & Hanesian, H. (1980). Psicologia Educacional , Interamericana, Rio de Janeiro. Caas, A. J., Ford, K. M., Coffey, J., Reichherzer, T., Carff, R., Shamma, D., & Breedy, M. (2000). Herramientas para Construir y Compartir Modelos de Conocimiento basados en Mapas Conceptuales. Revista de Informtica Educativa, 13(2), 145-158. Delizoicov D., Angotti, J. A. & Pernanbuco, M. M. (2003). Ensino de Cincia: fundamentos e mtodos, Cortez, So Paulo. Freire, P. (1981). Pedagogia do Oprimido, Paz e Terra, Rio de Janeiro. Kurose, J. F. & Ross, K. W. (2000). Computer Networking: A Top-Down Approach Featuring the Internet, Addison Wesley. Novak, J. D. (2003). The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How To Construct Them, Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, University of West Florida. http://cmap.coginst.uwf.edu/info Peterson, L. L. & Davie, B. S. (2000). Computer Networks: A System Approach, second edition, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco. Tanenbaum, A. (2003). Computer Network, Fourth Edition, Prentice Hall.
1 This

Web application was constructed with the IHMC CmapTools from the Institute for Human and Machine Cognition.

Site map: Learning Site map: Teaching About References [Personal Construct Theory] [Constructivism in learning]

[On learning styles] [misrepresentation, myths and misleading ideas] [Conversational learning theory; Pask and Laurillard] from the Recent Reflection blog...
FeedWind

Latest! How to structure your dissertation on the Doceo sister site.

Constructivist Theory
Constructivism is the label given to a set of theories about learning which fall somewhere between cognitive and humanistic views. If behaviourism treats the organism as a black box, cognitive theory recognises the importance of the mind in making sense of the material with which it is presented. Nevertheless, it still presupposes that the role of the learner is primarily to assimilate whatever the teacher presents. Constructivism particularly in its "social" forms suggests that the learner is much more actively involved in a joint enterprise with the teacher of creating ("constructing") new meanings. We can distinguish between

"cognitive constructivism" which is about how the individual learner understands things, in terms of developmental stages and learning styles, and "social constructivism", which emphasises how meanings and understandings grow out of social encounterssee Vygotsky below.

In this sense, conversational theories of learning fit into the constructivist framework. The emphasis is on the learner as an active "maker of meanings". The role of the teacher is to enter into a dialogue with the learner, trying to understand the meaning to that learner of the material to be learned, and to help her or him to refine their understanding until it corresponds with that of the teacher.

One strand of constructivism may be traced to the writings of John Dewey, On Dewey: this site as a whole is invaluablebookmark itwho emphasised the place of experience in education. Another starts from the work of Piaget, who demonstrated empirically that childrens minds were not empty, but actively processed the material with which they were presented, and postulated the mechanisms of accommodation and assimilation as key to this processing. At the theoretical level connections can also be made with the Personal Construct theory of George Kelly (the coincidence of terminology is no accident).

Vygotsky
Note that Zone of Proximal Development (or just "ZPD"even better) has a very high score on the jargon index!But the most significant bases of a social constructivist theory were laid down by Vygotsky [1896-1934] (1962), in his theory of the "Zone of Proximal Development" (ZPD). "Proximal" simply means "next". He observed that when children were tested on tasks on their own, they rarely did as well as when they were working in collaboration with an adult. It was by no means always the case that the adult was teaching them how to perform the task, but that the process of engagement with the adult enabled them to refine their thinking or their performance to make it more effective. Hence, for him, the development of language and articulation of ideas was central to learning and development. (See Daniels (1996) for an introduction to Vygotsky.) The common-sense idea which fits most closely with this model is that of "stretching" learners. It is common in constructing skills check-lists to have columns for "cannot yet do", "can do with help", and "can do alone". The ZPD is about "can do with help", not as a permanent state but as a stage towards being able to do something on your own. The key to "stretching" the learner is to know what is in that person's ZPDwhat comes next, for them. Summary of Vygotsky: also a site worth bookmarking

If you are of a psychoanalytic turn of mind, you may see clear links between the idea of the ZPD and Winnicott's "potential space" which develops between baby and mother. It is always interesting to find the same observations and ideas cropping up in quite different frameworks. The social dimension of learning is also central to the idea of situated learning and communities of practice, although the interaction is a little more diffuse, and to the social learning theories of Albert Bandura. While constructivism has received more explicit attention in schools than in postcompulsory education, particularly through the influential work of Jerome Bruner (who is credited with introducing Vygotsky to the West), its attention to pre-existing ideas and understanding clearly has a lot to offer in post-compulsory education most dramatically perhaps in the area of resistance to learning. Constructivist assumptions are also implicit in the notion of learning through reflection in professional practice. And Laurillard's conversational model of teaching in higher education is also based on constructivist thinking.

Constructivism Learning Theory

Constructivism learning theory is a philosophy which enhances students' logical and conceptual growth. The underlying concept within the constructivism learning theory is the role which experiences-or connections with the adjoining atmosphere-play in student education. The constructivism learning theory argues that people produce knowledge and form meaning based upon their experiences. Two of the key concepts within the constructivism learning theory which create the construction of an individual's new knowledge are accommodation and assimilation. Assimilating causes an individual to incorporate new experiences into the old experiences. This causes the individual to develop new outlooks, rethink what were once misunderstandings, and evaluate what is important, ultimately altering their perceptions. Accommodation, on the other hand, is reframing the world and new experiences into the mental capacity already present. Individuals conceive a particular fashion in which the world operates. When things do not operate within that context, they must accommodate and reframing the expectations with the outcomes. The role of teachers is very important within the constructivism learning theory. Instead of giving a lecture the teachers in this theory function as facilitators whose role is to aid the student when it comes to their own understanding. This takes away focus from the teacher and lecture and puts it upon the student and their learning. The resources and lesson plans that must be initiated for this learning theory take a very different approach toward traditional learning as well. Instead of telling, the teacher must begin asking.

Instead of answering questions that only align with their curriculum, the facilitator in this case must make it so that the student comes to the conclusions on their own instead of being told. Also, teachers are continually in conversation with the students, creating the learning experience that is open to new directions depending upon the needs of the student as the learning progresses. Teachers following Piaget's theory of constructivism must challenge the student by making them effective critical thinkers and not being merely a "teacher" but also a mentor, a consultant, and a coach. Instead of having the students relying on someone else's information and accepting it as truth, the constructivism learning theory supports that students should be exposed to data, primary sources, and the ability to interact with other students so that they can learn from the incorporation of their experiences. The classroom experience should be an invitation for a myriad of different backgrounds and the learning experience which allows the different backgrounds to come together and observe and analyze information and ideas. The constructivism learning theory will allow children to, at an early age or a late age, develop the skills and confidence to analyze the world around them, create solutions or support for developing issues, and then justify their words and actions, while encouraging those around them to do the same and respecting the differences in opinions for the contributions that they can make to the whole of the situation. Classroom applications of constructivism support the philosophy of learning which build a students' and teachers' understanding.

Constructivism
Summary: Constructivism as a paradigm or worldview posits that learning is an active, constructive process. The learner is an information constructor. People actively construct or create their own subjective representations of objective reality. New information is linked to to prior knowledge, thus mental representations are subjective. Originators and important contributors: Vygotsky, Piaget, Dewey, Vico, Rorty, Bruner Keywords: Learning as experience, activity and dialogical process; Problem Based Learning (PBL); Anchored instruction; Vygotskys Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD); cognitive apprenticeship (scaffolding); inquiry and discovery learning. Constructivism A reaction to didactic approaches such as behaviorism and programmed instruction, constructivism states that learning is an active, contextualized process of constructing knowledge rather than acquiring it. Knowledge is constructed based on personal experiences and hypotheses of the environment. Learners continuously test these hypotheses through social negotiation. Each person has a different interpretation and

construction of knowledge process. The learner is not a blank slate (tabula rasa) but brings past experiences and cultural factors to a situation. NOTE: A common misunderstanding regarding constructivism is that instructors should never tell students anything directly but, instead, should always allow them to construct knowledge for themselves. This is actually confusing a theory of pedagogy (teaching) with a theory of knowing. Constructivism assumes that all knowledge is constructed from the learners previous knowledge, regardless of how one is taught. Thus, even listening to a lecture involves active attempts to construct new knowledge. Vygotskys social development theory is one of the foundations for constructivism.

What is constructivism? Constructivism is basically a theory -- based on observation and scientific study -- about how people learn. It says that people construct their own understanding and knowledge of the world, through experiencing things and reflecting on those experiences. When we encounter something new, we have to reconcile it with our previous ideas and experience, maybe changing what we believe, or maybe discarding the new information as irrelevant. In any case, we are active creators of our own knowledge. To do this, we must ask questions, explore, and assess what we know. In the classroom, the constructivist view of learning can point towards a number of different teaching practices. In the most general sense, it usually means encouraging students to use active techniques (experiments, real-world problem solving) to create more knowledge and then to reflect on and talk about what they are doing and how their understanding is changing. The teacher makes sure she understands the students' preexisting conceptions, and guides the activity to address them and then build on them.

What is constructivism? How does this theory differ from traditional ideas about teaching and learning? What does constructivism have to do with my classroom? Expert Interview What is the history of constructivism, and how has it changed over time? What are some critical perspectives? What are the benefits of constructivism?

What does constructivism have to do with my classroom? As is the case with many of the current/popular paradigms, you're probably already using the constructivist approach to some degree. Constructivist teachers pose questions and problems, then guide students to help them find their own answers. They use many techniques in the teaching process. For example, they may:

prompt students to formulate their own questions (inquiry) allow multiple interpretations and expressions of learning (multiple intelligences) encourage group work and the use of peers as resources (collaborative learning)

More information on the above processes is covered in other workshops in this series. For now, it's important to realize that the constructivist approach borrows from many other practices in the pursuit of its primary goal: helping students learn HOW TO LEARN. In a constructivist classroom, learning is . . .

Students are not blank slates upon which knowledge is etched. They come to learning situations with already formulated knowledge, ideas, and understandings. This previous knowledge is the raw material for the new knowledge they will create. Example: An elementary school teacher presents a class problem to measure the length of the "Mayflower." Rather than starting the problem by introducing the ruler, the teacher allows students to reflect and to construct their own methods of measurement. One student offers the knowledge that a doctor said he is four feet tall. Another says she knows horses are measured in "hands." The students discuss these and other methods they have heard about, and decide on one to apply to the problem.

What is constructivism? Constructivism is basically a theory -- based on observation and scientific study -about how people learn. It says that people construct their own understanding and knowledge of the world, through experiencing things and reflecting on those experiences. When we encounter something new, we have to reconcile it with our previous ideas and experience, maybe changing what we believe, or maybe discarding the new information as irrelevant. In any case, we are active creators of our own knowledge. To do this, we must ask questions, explore, and assess what we know. In the classroom, the constructivist view of learning can point towards a number of different teaching practices. In the most general sense, it usually means encouraging students to use active techniques (experiments, real-world problem solving) to create more knowledge and then to reflect on and talk about what they are doing and how their understanding is changing. The teacher makes sure she understands the students' preexisting conceptions, and guides the activity to address them and then build on them.

Constructivist teachers encourage students to constantly assess how the activity is helping them gain understanding. By questioning themselves and their strategies, students in the constructivist classroom ideally become "expert learners." This gives them everbroadening tools to keep learning. With a well-planned classroom environment, the students learn HOW TO LEARN. You might look at it as a spiral. When they continuously reflect on their experiences, students find their ideas gaining in complexity and power, and they develop increasingly strong abilities to integrate new information. One of the teacher's main roles becomes to encourage this learning and reflection process. For example: Groups of students in a science class are discussing a problem in physics. Though the teacher knows the "answer" to the problem, she focuses on helping students restate their questions in useful ways. She prompts each student to reflect on and examine his or her current knowledge. When one of the students comes up with the relevant concept, the teacher seizes upon it, and indicates to the group that this might be a fruitful avenue for them to explore. They design and perform relevant experiments. Afterward, the students and teacher talk about what they have learned, and how their observations and experiments helped (or did not help) them to better understand the concept. Contrary to criticisms by some (conservative/traditional) educators, constructivism does not dismiss the active role of the teacher or the value of expert knowledge. Constructivism modifies that role, so that teachers help students to construct knowledge rather than to reproduce a series of facts. The constructivist teacher provides tools such as problem-solving and inquiry-based learning activities with which students formulate and

test their ideas, draw conclusions and inferences, and pool and convey their knowledge in a collaborative learning environment. Constructivism transforms the student from a passive recipient of information to an active participant in the learning process. Always guided by the teacher, students construct their knowledge actively rather than just mechanically ingesting knowledge from the teacher or the textbook. Constructivism is also often misconstrued as a learning theory that compels students to "reinvent the wheel." In fact, constructivism taps into and triggers the student's innate curiosity about the world and how things work. Students do not reinvent the wheel but, rather, attempt to understand how it turns, how it functions. They become engaged by applying their existing knowledge and real-world experience, learning to hypothesize, testing their theories, and ultimately drawing conclusions from their findings. The best way for you to really understand what constructivism is and what it means in your classroom is by seeing examples of it at work, speaking with others about it, and trying it yourself. As you progress through each segment of this workshop, keep in mind questions or ideas to share with your colleagues. What are the benefits of constructivism?

. Benefit Children learn more, and enjoy learning more when they are actively involved, rather than passive listeners. . Benefit Education works best when it concentrates on thinking and understanding, rather than on rote memorization. Constructivism concentrates on learning how to think and understand. . Benefit Constructivist learning is transferable. In constructivist classrooms, students create organizing principles that they can take with them to other learning settings. . Benefit Constructivism gives students ownership of what they learn, since learning is based on students' questions and explorations, and often the students have a hand in designing the assessments as well. Constructivist assessment engages the students' initiatives and personal investments in their journals, research reports, physical models, and artistic representations. Engaging the creative instincts develops students' abilities to express knowledge through a variety of ways. The students are also more likely to retain and transfer the new knowledge to real life.

. Benefit By grounding learning activities in an authentic, real-world context, constructivism stimulates and engages students. Students in constructivist classrooms learn to question things and to apply their natural curiousity to the world. . Benefit Constructivism promotes social and communication skills by creating a classroom environment that emphasizes collaboration and exchange of ideas. Students must learn how to articulate their ideas clearly as well as to collaborate on tasks effectively by sharing in group projects. Students must therefore exchange ideas and so must learn to "negotiate" with others and to evaluate their contributions in a socially acceptable manner. This is essential to success in the real world, since they will always be exposed to a variety of experiences in which they will have to cooperate and navigate among the ideas of others. How does this theory differ from traditional ideas about teaching and learning? As with many of the methods addressed in this series of workshops, in the constructivist classroom, the focus tends to shift from the teacher to the students. The classroom is no longer a place where the teacher ("expert") pours knowledge into passive students, who wait like empty vessels to be filled. In the constructivist model, the students are urged to be actively involved in their own process of learning. The teacher functions more as a facilitator who coaches, mediates, prompts, and helps students develop and assess their understanding, and thereby their learning. One of the teacher's biggest jobs becomes ASKING GOOD QUESTIONS. And, in the constructivist classroom, both teacher and students think of knowledge not as inert factoids to be memorized, but as a dynamic, ever-changing view of the world we live in and the ability to successfully stretch and explore that view. The chart below compares the traditional classroom to the constructivist one. You can see significant differences in basic assumptions about knowledge, students, and learning. (It's important, however, to bear in mind that constructivists acknowledge that students are constructing knowledge in traditional classrooms, too. It's really a matter of the emphasis being on the student, not on the instructor.)

Curriculum begins with the parts of the whole. Emphasizes basic skills. Strict adherence to fixed curriculum

Curriculum emphasizes big concepts, beginning with the whole and expanding to include the parts. Pursuit of student questions and

is highly valued. Materials are primarily textbooks and workbooks. Learning is based on repetition. Teachers disseminate information to students; students are recipients of knowledge. Teacher's role is directive, rooted in authority. Assessment is through testing, correct answers.

interests is valued. Materials include primary sources of material and manipulative materials. Learning is interactive, building on what the student already knows. Teachers have a dialogue with students, helping students construct their own knowledge. Teacher's role is interactive, rooted in negotiation. Assessment includes student works, observations, and points of view, as well as tests. Process is as important as product. Knowledge is seen as dynamic, ever changing with our experiences. Students work primarily in groups.

Knowledge is seen as inert. Students work primarily alone. What are some critical perspectives?

Constructivism has been criticized on various grounds. Some of the charges that critics level against it are: . It's elitist. Critics say that constructivism and other "progressive" educational theories have been most successful with children from privileged backgrounds who are fortunate in having outstanding teachers, committed parents, and rich home environments. They argue that disadvantaged children, lacking such resources, benefit more from more explicit instruction.

. Social constructivism leads to "group think." Critics say the collaborative aspects of constructivist classrooms tend to produce a "tyranny of the majority," in which a few

students' voices or interpretations dominate the group's conclusions, and dissenting students are forced to conform to the emerging consensus. . There is little hard evidence that constructivist methods work. Critics say that constructivists, by rejecting evaluation through testing and other external criteria, have made themselves unaccountable for their students' progress. Critics also say that studies of various kinds of instruction -- in particular Project Follow Through 1, a long-term government initiative -- have found that students in constructivist classrooms lag behind those in more traditional classrooms in basic skills.

1. Constructivists counter that in studies where children were compared on higher-order thinking skills, constructivist students seemed to outperform their peers.