Professional Reading
Language Demands in New Zealand Secondary School Classrooms
by Keum Ja Nam and Marilyn Lewis
Index
Introduction
Recent Studies
The Present Study
Analysis of Results
Comments and Recommendations
References
The integration of language and content in programmes
for secondary school second-language learners has a long history. To provide
a basis for planning such ESOL programmes, recent studies in New Zealand and
elsewhere have investigated the various language demands of the mainstream
curriculum. For this same purpose, a study of one group of sixth form (year
12) students, conducted by Keum Ja Nam and Marilyn Lewis, analyses the tasks
required of these students in thirteen mainstream subject classes in one school.
The results have implications for both ESOL and mainstream teachers interested
in working together to improve second-language learners' content-based language.
The claims for content-based language teaching in secondary school ESOL programmes
are well established following Mohan's premise that "we need more than a laissez-faire
approach to help students with the language demands of the content class"
(1986, page 7). By whatever name ESOL programmes are organised ("language
and content", "language across the curriculum", "the language of learning",
"language support"), they are based on the understanding that specific subjects
have greater language demands than do general English classes.
The New Zealand Curriculum Framework (1993) explicitly includes language-related
skills in four of its eight essential skills, as the following brief examples
show:
- Communication Skills: convey and receive information
- Numeracy Skills: organise information
- Information Skills: identify, describe, and interpret
- Problem-solving Skills: inquire and research.
Language use is also implicit in the other four essential skills.
[Back to the Top]
Recent Studies
Recent studies in this country have analysed specific-subject curriculum
documents to discover the demands of the mainstream curriculum, particularly
in the areas of science and mathematics. For example, Penton (1996) examines
the mathematics and science curricula for their language demands. Her examples
include "posing questions", "developing arguments", and "following sets of
instructions" from mathematics and "discussing", "listening", and "reading
articles" from science.
Edwards and Hill (1992) also describe the language skills required in the
New Zealand science curriculum. They point out the various patterns of talking
and listening during classroom discussion. They also say that many recent
science publications have instructions and minimal reading at junior levels
but then require students to read lengthier texts at senior levels. They contrast
junior students' experience in writing narrative with their need for expository
writing skills for science.
More specifically, Vine (1997) explains in detail a science text's language-learning
requirements in terms of students' previous experiences and background knowledge
and the text's vocabulary, function, register, text layout, and discourse
structure.
The language of learning can go beyond the actual subject content, as Barnard
(1998) demonstrates in his list of the functions of teacher talk. He notes
that, in facilitating learning, teachers use language to organise, give task
instructions, elicit and provide feedback, modify behaviour, and socialise,
including joking.
[Back to the Top]
The Present Study
The present study adds to the body of knowledge about the language and learning
demands of the curriculum. It investigates two questions:
- What are the language and learning demands in form 6 (year 12) subject
classes?
- How might ESOL teachers use these results and others from their own school?
Observations took place in twelve classes (covering eleven different subjects)
in a co-educational secondary school with a roll of 785 students, of whom
ninety-two were attending ESOL classes. The researcher accompanied ESOL students
to each of the form 6 (year 12) subject classes in which they and the mainstream
students were studying. The subject classes were:
| A = accounting; |
B = biology (two classes); |
| Ch = chemistry; |
C = computers; |
| E = economics; |
G = graphics; |
| M = mathematics; |
PE = physical education; |
| Pho = photography; |
Phy = physics; |
| S = science. |
|
She took detailed field notes of each activity and then grouped the activities
under general headings that emphasised their language and learning demands.
An activity was noted once for each lesson, however often or for however long
it occurred. Table 1 summarises the results of the observation in terms of
frequency, with activities arranged from the most to the least frequently
noted.
| Table 1: Activities in the Subject Classes |
| Activity |
Subjects |
| Following spoken explanations |
all |
| Answering oral questions |
A B1 B2 M Pho Phy |
| Following spoken instructions |
C E G PE |
| Completing a worksheet |
M S Phy |
| Note-taking from teacher's talk |
A Pho |
| Correcting work by listening |
B1 S |
| Watching and understanding a video |
B2 |
| Copying from the board |
M |
| Reading the textbook |
A |
| Retrieving printed information |
E |
| Self-marking a completed worksheet |
Phy |
| Problem solving from a workbook |
C |
| Writing up an experiment |
Ch |
| Performing and discussing experiments |
Ch |
| Asking oral questions |
Ch |
| Making an object |
G |
| Playing a sport |
PE |
Details from the field notes show how these activities flowed in one biology
class. The teacher:
- explained a new concept;
- gave students a handout with a content summary and exercises on it;
- continued an explanation, using ten OHTs of pictures and tables;
- asked students to read out their answers from the homework sheet.
The class corrected their own homework sheets, and then the teacher:
- added lengthier explanations;
- asked for the meaning of new words from that day's lessons;
- named some conditions and asked students to explain a result.
[Back to the Top]
Analysis of Results
The language and learning demands of the subject classes can be analysed
in a number of ways.
Frequency of Activities
Examining the most frequent activities across subjects showed that listening
to the teacher explaining the subject matter was an important part of learning
in every subject. Answering the teacher's oral questions was part of six of
the thirteen classes, and following spoken instructions was part of five classes.
Where there were no spoken instructions, it was because these were implicit,
either through the teacher doing a problem as a model for the students (as
in the accounting, chemistry, and physics classes) or through the students
copying from the board (as in the mathematics class).
At the other end of the scale, making a chair during the graphics class was
the most language-free activity observed, although of course, it too depended
on the students having understood the instructions.
Student Interaction
A different analysis can be made in terms of the amount of initiating and
responding required of students. For example, in only one subject did students
have to initiate questions. This happened while they worked in groups during
a chemistry experiment. Elsewhere, as well as responding to the teacher's
questions, they were expected to respond to instructions, to text, and to
a worksheet. In one or two activities (watching a video and following explanations),
no response was required at the time.
Skills Required
A third analysis can be made according to particular skills the students required.
These were listening (to the teacher, to videos, and to fellow students),
speaking (in group work and in answering the teacher's questions), reading
(from the board, from worksheets, and from the textbook), and writing (copying,
completing a worksheet, and taking notes while listening or reading). Of course,
some activities required the use of more than one skill simultaneously.
[Back to the Top]
Comments and Recommendations
Three caveats need to be mentioned about the results. Firstly, since each
class was visited only once, the patterns noted are not claimed to be typical
of that subject. Secondly, because the researcher's choice of classes to observe
was based on the subjects being studied by a particular group of ESOL students,
there is a bias towards the sciences. Thirdly, the observation does not cover
activities done by students outside class, apart from references made to correcting
homework. Within these constraints, the results suggest implications for ESOL
teachers as well as options for further research.
Clearly, listening was an essential part of the learning process for the
students whose classes were observed in this study. Is this the case in all
sixth form (year 12) subjects? How much listening is required in every class?
To whom do the students need to listen - to the teacher or to other students
(as in marking the homework in the biology class observed in this study)?
To ensure that students are adequately prepared, these questions need to be
answered in relation to particular contexts.
Video recorders are a useful way of gathering material for use in ESOL programmes.
With the availability of hand-held video recorders, ESOL teachers could record
segments from a range of teachers' lessons to use as the basis for lesson
planning and as a source of teaching material. It is preferable for second-language
learners, as they complete guided tasks, to watch video clips rather than
listen to recordings as clips expose students to visual clues that are an
important part of listening. Having a range of clips from different subjects
also addresses the problem of second-language learners becoming more and more
familiar with the voice of just one teacher. Teachers can also view the videotaped
data several times, allowing them to study different aspects of a lesson,
which are harder to note during one observation. For example, a video recording
could provide answers to the following questions:
- What exactly are the teacher's oral instructions?
- How do these compare with the written instructions on the worksheets?
- What proportion of the lesson is based on oral language?
- How does the teacher signal changes of topic during explanations?
- How much of the abstract language used is in common with other subjects?
ESOL teachers could also compare the activities planned for the ESOL class
with the mainstream activities.
The suggestions made in the study include aspects of teacher development,
programme evaluation, and partnership teaching. For example, experience suggests
that links between ESOL and mainstream teachers have a flow-on effect. As
well as such links giving immediate benefit to ESOL teachers and their students,
mainstream teachers gain feedback on their subjects' language and learning
demands as ESOL teachers share the results of their expertise in analysing
language and language tasks. A distribution of materials developed in the
ESOL class may also lead to benefits for all students in the mainstream class.
[Back to the Top]
References
Barnard, Roger. "ESOL Students: The Need for Systematic Induction to the
Learning Culture of Our Schools". Many Voices 13 (1998): pp. 4-7.
Edwards, F. and S. Hill (with help from A. Hume). Language and Learning
in Secondary Schools: Science. Wellington: Learning Media, 1992.
Kennedy, S. and S. Dewar. Non-English-Speaking Background Students: A Study
of Programmes and Support in New Zealand Schools. Wellington: Research and
International Section, Ministry of Education, 1997.
Ministry of Education. Mathematics in the New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington:
Learning Media, 1992.
Ministry of Education. The New Zealand Curriculum Framework. Wellington:
Learning Media, 1993.
Ministry of Education. Science in the New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington:
Learning Media, 1993.
Mohan, B. A. Language and Content. Reading, NA: Addison-Wesley, 1986.
Nam, Keum Ja. The ESOL Class · What Happens? Unpublished MA dissertation.
Auckland: Institute of Language Teaching and Learning, The University of Auckland,
1998.
Penton, Ruth. "Analysis of the Language Content and Perspectives in the National
Curriculum Statements". Many Voices 9 (1996): pp. 4-10.
Vine, Elaine. Language across the Curriculum: The Language Learning Potential
in a Science Text. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research,
1997.
Keum Ja Nam completed the study, on which this article is based, as part
of her MA in language teaching at the University of Auckland. She is grateful
to the school involved for allowing the observations to take place. Marilyn
Lewis is senior lecturer at the Institute of Language Teaching and Learning,
University of Auckland.
Many Voices, Number 15, 2000 x-x
Copyright © Keum Ja Nam and Marilyn Lewis 2000
[Back to the Top]
