[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Posted on the CoBaLTT website with permission from the National Foreign
Language Center, http://www.nflc.org
NFLC
Reports
Content-Based
Instruction:
Defining Terms,
Making Decisions

MYRIAM MET
Montgomery County Public Schools

The National Foreign

Language Center
Washington, D.C.

About the National Foreign Language Center

The National Foreign Language Center, a nonprofit organization established

within The Johns Hopkins University in 1987 with support from major private
foundations, is dedicated to improving the foreign language competency of
Americans. The NFLC emphasizes the formulation of public policy to make our
language teaching systems responsive to national needs. Its primary tools in
carrying out this objective are:
- Surveys. The NFLC conducts surveys to collect previously unavailable
information on issues concerning national strength and productivity in
foreign language instruction, and our foreign language needs in the
service of the economic, diplomatic and security interests of the nation.
- National policy planning groups. In order to address major foreign
language policy issues, the NFLC convenes national planning groups
that bring together users of foreign language services and representatives
of the language instructional delivery systems in formal education, the
government and the for-profit sector.
- Research. The NFLC conducts research on innovative, primarily
individual oriented strategies of language learning to meet the nation’s
needs of the future.,
In addition, the NFLC maintains an Institute of Advanced Studies where
individual scholars work on projects of their own choosing.
The results of these surveys, discussion and research are made available through
the NFLC’s publications, such as these Reports, and they form the basis of fresh
policy recommendations addressed to national leaders and decision makers.
About the NFLC Reports
This paper is part of a series of NFLC Reports based on the research of scholars
while they were fellows or adjunct fellows under the Mellon Foundation program
at the National Foreign Language Center. The NFLC prints and distributes these
articles on a variety of topics related to foreign language research, education and
policy. The research Reports are intended to serve as a vehicle of communication
and a stimulant for discussion among groups concerned with these topic areas.
The views expressed in these papers are the responsibility of the authors and do
not necessarily reflect the views of the NFLC or of The Johns Hopkins University.
Academic Advisors: Dr. Elana Shohamy and Victor Frank
Editor: Alex di Giovanni
Production Coordinator: Bobby Thigpen

Content-based Instruction:
Defining Terms,
Making Decisions

Myriam Met
Montgomery County Public Schools

T
he integration of language and content instruction has been a growing
phenomenon in the language field since the early 1980s. Programs,
models, and approaches have proliferated at all levels of instruction,
from elementary schools through postsecondary levels, bringing with
them a diverse nomenclature to identify instructional settings where
language and content are integrated. For many second and foreign
language educators, the various forms of language/content integration
fall under the rubric of content-based instruction.
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 Tucker’s 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.
A CONTINUUM OF LANGUAGE/CONTENT INTEGRATION
All of the programs, models, and approaches that integrate language and
content share a common phenomenon: students engage in some way
with content using a non-native language. The instructional experiences
in which students engage may be placed on the continuum below.
Figure 1
CONTENT-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING:
A CONTINUUM OF CONTENT AND LANGUAGE
INTEGRATION

Content-Driven Language-Driven
Content is taught in L2. Content is used to learn L2.
Content learning is priority. Language learning is priority.
Language learning is secondary. Content learning is incidental.
Content objectives determined Language objectives determined
by course goals or by L2 course goals or
curriculum. curriculum.
Teachers must select language Students evaluated on content to
objectives. be integrated.
Students evaluated on content Students evaluated on language
mastery. skills/proficiency.
 The continuum provides for a range of programs and approaches
that may be primarily content-driven or language driven. In content-
driven programs, student learning of content is of greater importance
than language learning. Content outcomes are a driving force of
instruction, and student mastery of content is held to be of paramount
importance. In language-driven programs, content is a useful tool for
furthering the aims of the language curriculum. Content learning may be
considered incidental, and neither teachers nor students are held
accountable for content outcomes. Examples of programs that tie across
the continuum can be found at all levels of education. A number of these
program models are discussed below.
Content-driven programs
The most salient example of a content-driven language program
is immersion, an educational model most commonly found in elementary
schools where students are educated in a non-native language. The focus
of instruction is on content—it is expected that students will master the
regular school curriculum, even though they are learning it in a language
that is new to them. Elementary school immersion programs depend on
parents voluntarily enrolling their children, and few programs would
survive if they did not produce expected levels of academic
achievement. In total immersion, the entire school curriculum is taught
initially through the foreign language, with content instruction in the L1
gradually increasing through the grades; in partial immersion, at least
half the school day is spent learning school subjects in another language.
Although immersion programs also aim to produce students with
oral and written proficiency in a foreign language, in many immersion
programs Little explicit instruction in the foreign language is included in
the curriculum. While students do learn to read in the foreign language,
and a “language arts” component provides for instruction in some
aspects of language (e.g., how to write for a variety of purposes and
audiences), there is often little attention paid to the language elements
more commonly found in foreign language programs. That is, there may
not, be a foreign language curriculum, with defined learning objectives
or specific content (functions, vocabulary, grammar, discourse or social
competencies, etc.). Rather, the language that students acquire
emerges from content instruction and from the day-to-day interactions
between teacher and students, or among students themselves.
Immersion programs, whether partial or total, are often judged
successful based on student attainment of content, and may be deemed
effective even though the levels of language proficiency students attain
are not native-like (Swain and Johnson, 1997; Genesee, 1994).
Clearly, then, immersion programs, both total and partial, place
heavy emphasis on content learning in many subjects and the acquisition
of language plays a secondary role. Immersion is therefore positioned at
the extreme end of the continuum, and serves as an exemplar for the
concept of “content-driven language program."
Language-driven programs
At the extreme other end of the continuum are language-driven
programs. In these programs, language has primacy, and content
facilitates language growth. Content learning may be considered a
gratuitous but welcome by-product, but neither students nor their
teachers are held accountable for ensuring that students learn it. Here,
content provides rich avenues for meaningful and purposeful language
use (Brinton, Snow and Wesche, 1989; Curtain and Pesola, 1994; Met,
1991). In this program design, content taught in the foreign language
enriches or reinforces instruction in the student’s native language, but
does not substitute for it. In fact, the responsibility for content learning
lies with another teacher.
Curtain and Pesola (1994) use the term “content-related” to
describe elementary school foreign language programs that...use the
regular curriculum as a vehicle for making the language activities more
cognitively engaging... [They] reinforce the curriculum and may or may
not use content directly associated with the grade level of the students”
(p. 149). In language-driven programs, the objectives of the language
curriculum drive decisions about how content is integrated with language
instruction. Teachers may, but need not, consult with colleagues in other
disciplines to determine which, when and how content will be integrated
with language. Topics and tasks for language practice may be drawn from
many disciplines in a single lesson or unit, with the primary criterion for
selection based on their usefulness in furthering language goals. A single
language unit on describing homes can draw practice activities from
several content areas, such as the social sciences (observing how
architectural styles and building materials reflect climate and local
resources), and mathematics (determining the cost per square
foot/meter of apartments in the local area and in the target culture).
In other language-driven classrooms, teachers may decide to draw
on only one discipline—particularly if that discipline is a high priority
subject in the school, such as mathematics. For example, an eighth
grade language teacher was teaching a unit “Shopping for Clothing.” She
integrated mathematics by having students calculate the final cost of a
pair of jeans that was discounted by 15% and taxed at a rate of 8%.
Another elementary school teacher taught the unit “Animals of the
World.” Because her students were learning the concept of
multiplication, the language teacher also integrated mathematics by
having students work through story problems that involved animals.
("There are three trees. There are four monkeys in each tree. How many
monkeys...?") These language-driven teachers chose to use content-
based activities that allowed students to practice the language
objectives they were expected to learn while at the same time
reinforcing a content area that has high priority in schools. Examples of
language- driven instruction are common in elementary school foreign
language programs in the U.S. and may also be found in middle schools.
BETWEEN THE EXTREMES
What lies in the range between the extremes of the continuum?
We have seen that at either end of the continuum are content-driven
programs that place high priority on content learning, and in which
language learning emerges from content instruction on the one hand,
and language-driven programs, in which language is of primary
importance and content a vehicle for developing desired language skills
on the other. Other forms of content/language integration include
subject courses taught in the second/foreign language, subject courses
taught in conjunction with language classes, and theme-based language
courses that draw on one or more disciplines to develop language
competence. These approaches to content/ language integration are
shown in Figure2.
Figure 2
CONTENT-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING:
A CONTINUUM OF CONTENT AND LANGUAGE
INTEGRATION

Content-Driven Language-Driven

Total Partial Sheltered Adjunct Theme- Language

Immersion Immersion Courses Model Based classes
Courses with
frequent
use of
content
for
language
practice

Postsecondary institutions have seen explosive growth in

programs that integrate language and content (Snow and Brinton, 1997;
Krueger and Ryan, 1993b). Brinton, Snow, and Wesche (1989) describe
three basic approaches to language and content integration in
postsecondary settings: sheltered courses, adjunct courses, and theme-
based courses. Sheltered courses are subject courses taught in the L2
using linguistically sensitive teaching strategies in order to make content
accessible to learners who have less than native-like proficiency.
Sheltered courses are content-driven: the goal is for students to master
content; students are evaluated in terms of content learning, and
language learning is secondary.
 In contrast, in the adjunct model of language/content
integration, both language and content are the goal. Adjunct courses lie
at the center of the continuum of content/language integration.
Students are expected to learn content material while simultaneously
acquiring academic language proficiency. Content instructors and
language instructors share responsibility for student learning, with
students evaluated by content instructors for subject matter mastery,
and by language instructors for ‘language skills. Unlike sheltered
courses, where students are all learning content in an L2, in the adjunct
model content classes may be comprised of both L1 and L2 content
learners, but language instruction is almost always for L2 learners.
To the right of adjunct courses on the continuum are theme-based
courses. Theme-based courses are language-driven: the goal of these
courses is to help students develop L2 skills and proficiency. Themes are
selected based on their potential to contribute to the learner’s language
growth in specific topical or functional domains. Unlike sheltered
courses, which are taught by content instructors, and adjunct courses
that are co-taught, theme-based courses are taught by language
instructors to L2 Learners who are evaluated in terms of their language
growth. Students (and their teachers) are not necessarily accountable
for content mastery. Indeed, content learning is incidental. Each of
these approaches is discussed in more detail below.
Subject courses taught in a second/foreign language
As we have seen, sheltered content instruction is a form of
content/ language integration in which L2 learners are expected to learn
content. Content-driven courses in which specific classes are taught
through the medium of another language are found in both second and
foreign language contexts and may be found at all levels of schooling.
Some of these courses are sheltered courses, and others are foreign-
language enriched content courses (Allen, Anderson and Narvaez, 1992).
In the Netherlands, Hajer (1996) studied content courses taught
in an L2. She describes a program for secondary students in which
mathematics, geography and the sciences (biology, chemistry, and
physics) were taught in Dutch by subject matter teachers to groups of
non-native students.
In the U.S., “sheltered” ESL subject matter classes are designed
to enable students to acquire the school curriculum even when taught in
a language in which they have limited proficiency. Sheltered classes in
subjects such as social studies or mathematics have content learning as
their goal, and teachers use a variety of instructional strategies to make
abstract concepts and course information accessible to students who
lack the level of language proficiency required to master content in
mainstream classrooms. Crandall and Tucker (1990) explain that in this
form of content-based instruction “...subject matter teachers ...may
adapt their instruction to accommodate different levels of language
proficiency in their classes... [T]he language teacher acts as a resource
for other teachers, and ideally, helps those other teachers to increase
the mastery of academic concepts and skills on the part of linguistic
minority students” (p. 191). Rosen and Sasser (1997) note that “...[i]n
sheltered English content-area teachers use a variety of language
teaching strategies to enhance understanding of grade- and age-
appropriate subject-area concepts” (p. 35).
There are also examples of content-driven subject matter classes
in foreign language contexts. In some K-12 settings, students may study
one or two subjects through the medium of a foreign language. Students
learn the subject matter only in the foreign language—that is, subject
matter instruction in the foreign language substitutes for instruction in
the native language. (As noted earlier, Curtain and Pesola [1994] define
this approach as “content-based instruction.") Unlike immersion, in
which half or more of the school curriculum is taught through a foreign
Language, selected subjects are studied in the language. Further, as in
many immersion programs, there is no explicit language curriculum or
defined language learning outcomes—the course subject matter defines
the learning objectives. In a few elementary school foreign language
programs in the U.S., students learn one or two subjects entirety through
the foreign language, and do not learn these same subjects in English.
There may be little, if any, explicit language instruction. Because the
time available must be spent on providing content instruction, there is
minimal time available to devote to language learning per se. Language
growth emerges from the subject matter studied.
Sheltered courses at the postsecondary level have been described
by Edwards, Hauptman and Wesche (1984), Hauptman, et at. (1988),
Wesche (1993) and Baker (1993). Edwards, et al. provide detailed
descriptions of a sheltered psychology course taught in French to
anglophone students at the University of Ottawa. Baker reports on
regular content courses taught in a foreign language by faculty members
of the International Policy Studies Division at the Monterey Institute of
International Studies. As is true of most content-driven programs, Baker
notes that faculty for these courses “...are not interested in ‘content-
based language instruction’; they are simply interested in
‘content"‘ (1993:122).
Enriched content learning
Foreign languages can also serve to enhance or enrich L1 content
learning. Allen, Anderson and Narvaez (1992, 1993) describe a number
of content-driven options for integrating content courses with foreign
languages at the postsecondary level. In these options, “[t]he goal may
not be so much ‘content-based foreign language instruction’ as “foreign
language enriched content instruction"‘ (1993:59). Options for enriching
content courses with foreign language may include full foreign language
immersion courses, internships in a community abroad, partial foreign
language immersion courses (using the language to complete a
significant number of course reading assignments in the L2), directed
readings (using the foreign language for directed study projects
coordinated by language-proficient faculty drawn from subject matter
departments), and limited supplemental course readings in the L2
(Allen, Anderson and Narvaez, 1993:106).
The “‘LxC” program at Binghamton University provides a good
example of content-driven, language-enriched learning. Assignments
based on reading materials in the student’s language of choice can
replace up to 20% of course assignments. Students who have elected the
LxC option meet with language resource specialists in study groups to
discuss their assignments in relation to the course content. Language
resource specialists are native speakers, international students with
expertise related to the courses in which students are enrolled (Straight,
1997). The Binghamton model differs notably from some other
postsecondary approaches to language and content integration “...in its
exclusive focus on instruction in the disciplinary subject-matter of the
LxC-supported course rather than the melding of language-instruction
goals...with the pre-existing discipline-specific instructional goals of the
supported course” (Straight, 1998, personal communication). An
interesting note in light of the continuum presented in this paper is that
Straight makes a distinction between content-based language
instruction, which he sees as a meld between course content and
language outcomes, and “Language-Based Content Instruction (LBCI),”
which LxC exemplifies. Straight’s programmatic term, LBCI, ties on the
content-driven end of the continuum because “...language- instruction
aspects of an LxC course exist solely as a means to an end rather than
ends in themselves” (Straight, 1998, personal communication).
In LBCI, “[e]xplicit instruction in vocabulary, pronunciation and
grammar are seen as facilitative of the content extraction task, and
measures of them are seen as diagnostic and formative rather than
summative gauges of student learning” (Straight, 1998, personal
communication). Because content, rather than language, defines
student success “...even students who make little linguistic advance, or
whose linguistic skills remain inferior to others in the same course, can
rise to the top of the class.” (Straight, 1998, personal communication)..
Content-driven, foreign language-enriched courses are also found
at the University of Minnesota (Metcalf, 1993). Political science seminars
taught in a foreign language allow students to compare news coverage
in English with that of the same events in a target language newspaper.
Seminars are led by Language-proficient graduate assistants drawn from
various disciplines. In addition, one-credit modules linked to courses in
history and geography are taught exclusively in the foreign language by
faculty drawn from those disciplines.
At Earlham College, Foreign Language Across the Curriculum
(FLAC) is a content-driven approach, and is defined distinctly from
content-based instruction, which is language-driven. For Jurasek (1993),
FLAC is a program design whose “central proposition...is not that
students will acquire more second language, but that they will acquire
new content, competence, insight, and critical thinking skills”
(1993:85). Supplemental readings in a foreign language enrich student
understanding of content taught in English. In contrast, content-based
instruction “is a progressive new style with new substance within the
purview and parameters of...the foreign language department” (Ibid.)
These definitions suggest that content-based instruction—which is a
language course taught through content—is language-driven, whereas
FLAC, which has content as its primary focus, is content-driven.
Content and language courses
Programs that tie at the center of the continuum are numerous
and diverse. The center of the continuum represents programs in which
student learning of content and language are Likely to be equally
important. An interesting range of approaches to the development of
both language and content outcomes for learners ranging from the
primary through the tertiary levels can be found in both second and
foreign language contexts. Both language and content are priorities in
English for Academic Purposes courses and Business French or Business
Spanish courses in the secondary and postsecondary settings. English for
Academic Purposes allows students to gain the language competence
needed to deal with complex and cognitively demanding university
coursework but simultaneously provides grounding in the course content
itself. In business classes, students not only gain the language skills
necessary to conduct business in the language but also knowledge of the
skills and concepts related to conducting business in various topical
areas. At Eastern Michigan University, “language, business, and
economics are equal partners” in the language and international trade
degree programs (Palmer, 1993:138).
As noted above, in the adjunct model common in many
postsecondary programs, students are expected to learn course content
and demonstrate language growth, as well. Language and content may
be integrated using a team design, in which a content course instructor
works collaboratively with a language instructor (Snow and Brinton,
1988). At UCLA, a summer program for entering freshman links ESL
courses with academic courses frequently taken to fulfill university
requirements (such as history, political science or psychology). ESL and
academic course instructors coordinate course syllabi and instruction to
ensure both language and content learning (Brinton, Snow and Wesche,
1989). The adjunct model is also used at George Fox University where a
U.S. history course and an ESL course were paired (Iancu, 1997). At the
high school level, Wegrzecka -Kowalewski (1997) has described linked
ESL and content courses in which instructional themes and coordinated
assignments provide opportunities for the mutual reinforcement of
language and content.
An equal emphasis on content and foreign language outcomes may
be found at the University of Rhode Island. Students may earn a Bachelor
of Arts degree in German along with a Bachelor of Science in
engineering. Language and content courses are coordinated to ensure
that students develop a range of intercultural communication skills,
including those needed in the global marketplace (Grandin, 1993).
The adjunct model frequently demonstrates a mutual influence
between content and language outcomes: neither one nor the other
drives instructional decision-making independently of the other.
Because both content and language are priorities, programs with a
shared emphasis tie at the midpoint of the continuum.
Theme-based language instruction
Stoller and Grabe (1997:81) suggest that all content-based
instruction is theme-based. Theme-based language instruction lies close
to the language-driven end of the continuum. In this approach, the
language teacher selects a theme from which language outcomes are
derived. For Eskey (1997), theme-based instruction adds a missing
dimension to traditional approaches to language syllabus design. Where
both form-based and notional/functional syllabi focus on rules, rather
than on real communication, theme-based language courses give
learners an interesting subject to learn or communicate about. Language
is used to explore content, and language growth emerges as students
need to comprehend or produce language related to content. Brinton,
Snow and Wesche (1989:26) note that in “...a theme-based course,...the
content is exploited and its use is maximized for the teaching of the skill
areas", but for Eskey, that does not mean that theme-based course
design begins with a prescribed list of language forms or functions to be
learned, but rather with topics of interest to students.
Murphey (1997) describes a range of themes used in a
postsecondary EFL program in Japan, from themes closely linked to
language (English in Japan) to courses with a broader focus (Language
Use in Communication, Computer Literacy, The Origins of American
Music). Extensive examples of theme-based instruction in both ESL and
EFL are provided in Brinton, Snow and Wesche (1989). Other examples
of theme-based foreign language courses that are designed to stretch
and refine students’ foreign language skills in specific topical areas of
professional or academic priority are reported by Leaver and Stryker
(1989) and Lafayette and Buscaglia (1985). Leaver and Stryker describe
a program in which topics related to professional assignments were
taught through a foreign language at the Foreign Service Institute. In
that program, language learners engaged in area studies pertinent to the
target language. In a similar vein, a culture course for language majors
was designed to provide a content-based approach to language
development by Lafayette and Buscaglia at Indiana University (1985).
In K-12 ESL programs, teachers may provide instruction “...that
adopts the concepts, tasks, and curricular materials from the content
areas...” (Crandall and Tucker, 1990:191), although the language teacher
may not be responsible for teaching the subject matter itself. Theme-
based language instruction may also be found in foreign language courses
in Grades K-12; teachers may develop units around themes such as the
circus, the environment, or contemporary social issues. In K-12 settings,
themes may be selected because they are interesting to learners and
provide rich opportunities to develop language skills. They may also
integrate content from other areas of the school curriculum, although
not necessarily from the same grade level. Pacesetter Spanish, a trend-
setting course developed by the College Board, organizes language
learning around six major themes such as youth, the environment, and
the arts. Montgomery County (Maryland) has organized its secondary
school foreign language curriculum in Levels 4-6 around content themes.
Teachers design units based on themes such as social issues (e.g.,
immigration), history, or the arts. One of the newer textbooks for
secondary school Spanish has organized its third year program around
themes of interest to adolescents. Students develop language skills while
exploring questions such as: “How can we control violence?” “Should
community service be required for graduation?’’ “How does art
communicate to us?” Figure 3 summarizes the range of content-based
programs discussed in this paper.
Figure 3
CONTENT-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING:
A CONTINUUM OF CONTENT AND LANGUAGE
INTEGRATION

Content-Driven Language-Driven

Total and Subject Subject Courses Language Language

Partial Courses Plus Language Classes Classes
Immersion Taught in Instruction Based on with
L2 Adjunct model Themes Frequent
Sheltered (Brinton, Snow Theme- Use of
classes & Wesche) based Content
(Brinton, English for courses for
Snow & Academic/Social (Brinton, Practice
Wesche) Purposes, Snow & Multi-
Foreign Business French Wesche) disciplinary
language- Content- Thematic activities
enriched enriched FLES units used
university (Curtain & Area to improve
courses Pesola) studies language
(Jurasek, (Leaver & proficiency
et al.) Stryker) Content-
related
 LxC FLES
(Straight) (Curtain &
Content- Pesola)
based
FLES
(Curtain
& Pesola)

Program Design and Decision Making

As we have seen, models of content/language integration differ
in the degree to which outcomes determine priorities in designing
instruction from the general to the specific: units, lessons, tasks and
activities. These priorities are likely to reflect the rationale or purposes
for the integration of language and content and may include:
• ensuring that non-native students learn the content of the
curriculum and are prepared for academic success;
• providing students with the discourse styles and language toots of
their field of study or career;
• enhancing language learning by providing motivating topics to
communicate about; and
• enhancing language learning by providing meaningful, purposeful
language practice opportunities drawn from a variety of topics.
In the following sections the implications of content-driven vs.
language-driven programs for instructional decision-making will be
examined.
SELECTING CONTENT
In content-driven programs, where student mastery of content is of
prime importance, decisions about which content to integrate with
language teaching are relatively straightforward. In K-12 ESL settings,
content may be predetermined by the regular school curriculum in which
language minority students need to succeed. Similarly, in K-12 immersion
programs, the content taught through the foreign language is the local
school curriculum. In designs such as LxC, FLAC, or EAP, course content
is selected based on current course offerings at the institution and
priorities for content learning.
When content mastery is a high priority, such as settings where
learners are being schooled in a second or foreign language, it is vitally
important that students have, or gain quickly, a level of language
proficiency commensurate with the demands of the curriculum. Indeed,
gaining academic language proficiency is a primary goal of ESL content-
based instruction. In the early grades of immersion, the curriculum lends
itself well to learning content through hands-on, concrete experiences
that allow students to both match language to meaning and gain control
over the content itself. In contrast, many programs that integrate
language and content for older learners, such as those at the
postsecondary level, presuppose intermediate or higher levels of
proficiency (Snow, 1993; Wesche, 1993). In addition to language,
students’ background knowledge plays an important role as a building
block for new learning. Prior content knowledge is key to understanding
new information and concepts and can facilitate comprehension when
content is taught through the medium of an L2 (Brinton, 1997; Eskey,
1997). In sum, for students who are expected to demonstrate content
learning, instructional designs must ensure that the content is accessible
to those who must learn it.
While institutional curricula and course offerings may shape the
selection of content in content-driven programs, there is far greater
flexibility in selecting content in language-driven programs, and
therefore, fewer clear criteria for selection. Content must be topics or
themes of interest to the learner (Eskey, 1997; Genesee, 1994). Content
may be selected to allow students access to a wide range of language
that addresses topics of personal or professional interest beyond the
narrow range of survival language generally developed in basic language
courses (e.g., describing oneself and others or one’s personal
preferences). However, as Met has argued elsewhere (1998; 1999)
content should be cognitively engaging and demanding in order to
motivate learners to participate and persist in content-based tasks.
Selection of content may also be determined by the language
objectives of the course or curriculum so that it will serve as a rich
source of language practice tasks and activities. Teachers can begin with
a clear set of language objectives, and then identify tasks and activities
that are drawn from the school curriculum in order to provide
meaningful and purposeful language practice. For example, if the
language curriculum specifies that students will learn the language of
comparatives, they can practice the use of comparatives through
geography (comparing relative distances between cities in China),
science (comparing wind speed and precipitation from different climatic
events), mathematics (comparing measurements of objects), or even
social issues (the age at which one is considered “adult” or “old” in
various cultures). The choice of discipline(s) is made by the language
teacher, and will be based on the suitability of the content to the
language objectives, the accessibility of the content in relation to the
language proficiency of the students, and the degree to which content-
based tasks can engage the interests and intellect of the students.
DETERMINING LANGUAGE OUTCOMES
The model of content/language integration determines the language
students will learn. When content drives decisions, as is the case in
content-driven programs, the language students learn will be shaped by
the language of the content. As Genesee (1994) observes, implicit
language learning in immersion results from lessons in which content is
the focus. While all areas of the curriculum share a core of language in
common, each discipline also has its own unique terminology and
discourse style. Indeed, initiating L2 learners into the discourse
community of a given academic discipline can be a significant objective
of content-based instruction (Krueger and Ryan, 1993a; Widdowson,
1993).
Some of the language that emerges from content learning will be
high frequency, useful language outside the content classroom; some of
it may not be. The language of some disciplines can be more restricted
in its usefulness and applicability beyond the classroom walls than that
of others. In content-driven programs where content learning is a
priority and the language of the discipline is shared within academia,
the language that emerges is both useful and important. In contrast, in
language-driven programs where the goal may be to communicate in a
range of commonly encountered situations and contexts, some content-
based instruction may not provide students with high frequency, flexible
language skills. Language learned through mathematics and science is
likely to be more limited than will be language learned through
literature or the social sciences. Mathematics and science use specific
terminology that is uncommon in day-to-day social interaction
(quadratic equation, chrysalis, lever). In addition, reading mathematics
texts is different from reading narrative or expository texts in that
strategies such as skimming, scanning and decoding are not appropriate
(Reehm and Long, 1996). In contrast, many of the skills and strategies
that contribute to success in the social sciences are applicable in other
contexts (defining terms, retelling events, requesting information, role-
playing, stating and defending opinions). (Short, 1997:219). Some
content-based vocabulary such as labor, party and left may be used both
colloquially and academically, and have different meanings in each of
these contexts (Bernier, 1997).
While content may shape the language learned in content-driven
programs, language determines the content in language-driven
programs. Content is selected precisely because it furthers language
learning goals, and topics or tasks that are unlikely to result in the
attainment of the objects of the language course are simply not
selected. Thus, a high school language teacher is unlikely to select
aspects of the science curriculum that require students to name the
parts of atoms or identify the abbreviations and atomic weights of
elements on the Periodic Table unless somehow these help students
learn the language objectives of her curriculum.
Several implications suggest themselves if content shapes
language outcomes. First, where there is choice of content, as found in
program designs from the center to the right of the continuum, program
planners should consider the relationship between the language of the
content and the language skills they want students to acquire. Second,
if content is likely to be predetermined, as it is in immersion programs,
then consideration should be given to developing language skills not
inherent in the content itself. Snow, Met and Genesee (1989) have
suggested a model for planning for language growth in a variety of
second and foreign language programs. Careful planning for language
development can be useful in ensuring that students gain language
competence that will be useful in settings beyond the school itself.
In addition to planning for language outcomes through content
teaching, it may be necessary to include explicit language instruction.
Explicit language instruction may be incorporated into content classes
(content-driven models) or provided in a separate class or course
(adjunct models). In immersion, explicit language learning may occur
when teachers formally teach language arts in the foreign language
(Genesee, 1994). Explicit language instruction in content-driven models
can serve several functions:
• It can expand the communicative range of students beyond
that developed through content-language functions, vocabulary,
grammar and competencies at the discourse level.

• Explicit language instruction can also provide for social

language development. Social language—the discourse of
everyday—may not emerge naturally from learning subjects such
as mathematics or science.

• Explicit language instruction can lay the groundwork for

success in content learning. An adjunct language course can
provide the needed language skills, develop needed vocabulary,
or provide additional support through the scaffolding of reading
tasks and teaching students to write in the formats and discourse
style used in a particular discipline.

• Time set aside for explicit language instruction can also be

used to integrate aspects of culture learning, since content-
driven programs are so highly focused on content learning that
there may be limited attention to other aspects of the language
curriculum.

Assessing student progress

What determines student progress in content-based instruction?
What are some appropriate approaches to assessing what students have
learned? The answers to these questions are likely to reflect course
priorities and where on the continuum a program lies. In content-driven
programs, it is important to ascertain whether students are gaining
mastery over the content. This may be of particular concern if content
is important and students are learning it in a language in which they are
not proficient. In some programs—such as immersion in the U.S. or
content-based courses elsewhere—students will be expected to pass
national or state examinations in specific content areas, and those
examinations may be administered in the native language.
 For example, students in immersion programs in Japan and Spain
learn substantial portions of the school curriculum in English or Basque,
but are required to take national examinations in Japanese or Spanish.
In the U.S., many states and local districts administer performance-
based content assessments or standardized tests in English at various
grade points, and students are expected to perform well, even though
they have learned the content in a foreign language. Indeed, the very
success of immersion programs and some content-driven postsecondary
courses is often weighed in terms of how well students perform
academically, with less consideration given to their proficiency in the
foreign language (Genesee, 1994; Swaffar, 1.993; Swain and Johnson,
1997).
It is possible that students will know content relatively well, even
if they cannot demonstrate the depth of their understanding through
language. Since good content teaching uses strategies that allow
learners to access content even when their language skills are limited,
students may be able to show rather than explain their understanding.
To demonstrate their academic progress, students may call on the same
strategies that teachers use during instruction, using concrete objects,
diagrams, body language, or other paralinguistic supports to convey
meaning. For example, students may understand how simple machines
work, or be able to carry out complex algebraic tasks, but not be able
to explain how they arrived at their answer. Teachers will need to decide
when content learning should be assessed independently of language.
In many immersion programs, teachers do not regularly assess
language growth at all. They may assess certain language arts objectives
(e.g., how to write a business letter), but it is unusual for teachers to
have specified language objectives for each marking period of the school
year and to assess student progress against these objectives. In fact, in
many immersion programs, little format assessment of students’
language proficiency is done on a year-to-year basis, and students may
not even be evaluated at the end of their immersion experience. Aside
from the difficulties of conducting formal language evaluations
(concerns about appropriate instrumentation, finding time for one-on-
one oral assessments), immersion programs are content-focused, and
many parents, consider the program successful even if language
outcomes are less than might have been hoped for (Genesee, 1994).
Similarly, in many sheltered courses at the postsecondary level, students
are evaluated solely in terms of content mastery (Brinton, Snow, and
Wesche, 1989).
Often, however, it may be desirable for content and language to
be assessed in an integrated manner. The need to verbalize thought
frequently requires more precise control over concepts than does
demonstrating understanding. Writing requires clear thinking, and helps
pinpoint fuzzy understanding. Some advocates of cooperative learning
have argued that it is through the verbal interactions of peer teaching
that students begin to deepen their own understanding of content
(Davidson and Worsham, 1992). Thus, it may be important to require
that students in integrated content/language programs be assessed on
content through the target language. For example, content learning is
the ultimate goal for ESL learners, and academic English is the key to
success. For these students, it can be important to assess language and
content learning together. In the adjunct model, language and content
share equal importance and may need to be assessed together. Weigle
and Jensen (1997) suggest that if language and content are assessed on
the same tasks, different scoring criteria be used.
In contrast, teachers are more likely to assess language growth
than content mastery in language-driven courses. Since content is a
vehicle for promoting language outcomes, teachers and students do not
usually feel accountable for content learning. However, some aspects of
content may need to be integrated into language assessments. Good and
equitable assessment tasks mirror those used for instruction. Since
language cannot be used in a vacuum, and must be used to communicate
about something, it is likely that language assessment will need to be
based on the topics and tasks used in instruction. As a result, while
content mastery may not be a focus of assessment in theory, it may be
difficult in practice to separate content from language.
Preparing qualified teachers
The integration of content and language may pose unique
challenges to instructors whose experience and training may be either
as a content specialist or a language specialist. Few faculty have had
training in both. Those experienced in content-based approaches to
language instruction have noted that there are specific strategies and
skills that enhance teacher effectiveness (Cloud, 1998; Lorenz and Met,
1988; Met, 1994, 1989; Majhanovich and Fish, 1988; Short, 1997; Snow,
1997, 1987; Stole, 1997).
Teachers in content-based programs may be content specialists
who use the target language for instruction, or language specialists who
are using content for language instruction. To be effective in their roles,
they will need the knowledge, skills and concepts required for content
delivery in a second/foreign language. All teachers in content-based
programs have similar professional needs, but the degree to which they
will need certain knowledge or skills may vary by their assignment. To
be successful, it will be helpful for teachers to be well prepared in the
following areas.
Content knowledge. Obviously, it will be hard to teach content if
teachers do not know it themselves. While content teachers will be
prepared in their own disciplines, it may be particularly challenging for
teachers trained as language specialists who may have forgotten, or even
may not have learned, the content to be taught. Some language teachers
are uncomfortable teaching content in fields they may have struggled
with themselves, such as mathematics.
 Content pedagogy. There are identifiable strategies that make
content instruction more effective. Some content specialists have had
no training in pedagogy, particularly at the postsecondary Level.
Because learning content in a new language can pose difficulties for
students, it is essential that teachers (regardless of their content or
language orientation) have a repertoire of strategies at their disposal to
give students multiple opportunities to access content in meaningful,
comprehensible ways. Language specialists, in particular, will need
opportunities to become skilled in content-appropriate instructional
strategies if they are to teach or use content appropriately. For
example, while few secondary school art teachers would deem it
appropriate to lecture students as slides of famous works of art paraded
on the screen, some language teachers have used this approach when
incorporating art into language lessons.
Understanding of language acquisition. All teachers in content-
based programs will benefit from an understanding of the processes
involved in second language acquisition. Selecting and sequencing
appropriate learning experiences wilt be facilitated if teachers
understand how language develops in instructed settings.
Language pedagogy. Promoting language growth can and should
be done by content-based teachers, even those who work in settings
where content, not language, is a primary program goal (Snow, Met and
Genesee, 1989). Language learning can be planned as part of every
content lesson, and teachers can use strategies drawn from language
pedagogy to help students gain language skills. In fact, in doing so, they
will further the goals of content instruction, since the better students
know the language, the more easily they can learn content through it.
Knowledge of materials development and selection. When
students learn content through a new language they will need a variety
of instructional materials. Print and non-print resources developed for
native speakers may need modification or adaptation. Teachers may also
need to develop their own materials. Criteria for selecting and
developing materials include accessibility of language, text organization
that facilitates comprehension (e.g., headings and sub-headings),
availability of non-linguistic supports to meaning (illustrations, graphs,
diagrams), and degree of cultural knowledge required for
comprehension. In addition, teachers in K-12 settings will also need to
be familiar with local regulations that govern the use of commercially
produced instructional resources.
Understanding of student assessment. Teachers will need to
understand the principles that undergird assessment across disciplines.
It will be helpful for teachers to be familiar with a range of assessment
options, and the contexts in which they are most likely to provide
answers regarding student progress. These options may also need to
integrate language and content assessments as well as allow learning to
be measured independently.
CONCLUSION
As this paper has shown, diverse program models and designs have
emerged that integrate content and language learning. The diversity of
approaches reflects the purposes and rationales for using an L2 to learn
content, and for using content to learn an L2. The relative priorities
given to content, language or both, influence a number of decisions that
program and course designers will make: who will teach and what
teachers will need to know; whether students and teachers will be held
accountable for the learning of content or language; how student
progress will be assessed, by whom, and for what purposes. While all
programs that integrate content and L2 learning may fall under the
general rubric of content-based instruction, knowing where a program
or course lies on the continuum from content-driven to language-driven
can clarify the decision-making process. Clarity in decision-making, in
turn, may help to ensure that the choices instructional designers make
result in student achievement of learning goals.

REFERENCES
Allen, W., Keith Anderson and Leon Narvaez, 1992. “Foreign
Languages Across the Curriculum: The Applied Foreign Language
Component.” Foreign Language Annals, 25: 11-19.
Anderson, K., Wendy Allen and Leon Narvaez, 1993. “The Applied
Foreign Language Component in the Humanities and the Sciences.” In:
Merle Krueger and Frank Ryan (eds.) Language and Content: Discipline-
and Content-Based Approaches To Language Study. Lexington, MA: D.C.
Heath.
Baker, Steven J., 1993. “The Monterey Model: Integrating
International Policy Studies with Language Education.” In: Kreuger and
Ryan (eds.) Language and Content: Discipline- And Content-Based
Approaches To Language Study. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Bernier, Anthony, 1997. “The Challenge of Language and History:
Terminology from the Student Optic.” In: Marguerite Ann Snow and
Donna M. Brinton (eds.) The Content-Based Classroom. New York:
Longman.
Brinton, Donna M., 1997. “The Challenges of Administering
Content-Based Programs.” In: Snow and Brinton (eds.) The Content-
Based Classroom. New York: Longman.
Brinton, Donna M., Marguerite Ann Snow and Marjorie B. Wesche,
1989. Content-Based Second Language instruction. Boston: Heinle and
Heinle.
Chaput, Patricia P., 1993. “Revitalizing the Traditional Program.”
In: Kreuger and Ryan (eds.) Language and Content: Discipline- and
Content-Based Approaches to Language Study. Lexington, MA: D.C.
Heath.
 Cloud, Nancy, 1998. “Teacher Competencies in Content-Based
Instruction.” In: Myriam Met (ed.) Critical Issues in Early Second
Language Learning. Glenview, IL: Scott-Foresman-Addison Wesley.
Crandall, Jodi and G. Richard Tucker, 1990. “Content-Based
Instruction in Second and Foreign Languages.” In: Amado Padilla,
Hatford H. Fairchild and Concepcion Valadez (eds.) Foreign Language
Education: Issues and Strategies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Curtain, H.A. and Carol Ann Pesola, 1994. Languages and
Children: Making The Match. New York: Longman.
Davidson, Neil and Toni Worsham (eds.), 1992. Enhancing
Thinking Through Cooperative Learning. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Edwards, H., M. Wesche, S. Krashon, R. Clement and B.
Kruidenier, 1984. “Second-language Acquisition Through Subject Matter
Learning: A Study of Sheltered Psychology Classes at the University of
Ottawa.” The Canadian Modern Language Review, 41: 268-282.
Eskey, David, 1997. “Syllabus Design in Content-Based
Instruction.” In: Snow and Brinton (eds.) The Content-Based Classroom.
New York: Longman.
Genesee, Fred, 1994. Integrating Language and Content: Lessons
from Immersion. Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on
Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.
———, 1998. “Content-Based Language Instruction.” In: Met (ed.)
Critical Issues in Early Second Language Learning. Glenview, IL: Scott-
Foresman-Addison Wesley.
Grandin, John M., 1993. “The University of Rhode Island’s
International Engineering Program.” In: Kreuger and Ryan (eds.)
Language and Content: Discipline- and Content-Based Approaches to
Language Study. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Hajer, Maaike, 1993. “Learning through a second language.
Insights from classroom research.” Dutch contributions to AILA 1993.
Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 46/47, 2/3: 69-79.
Hauptman, Philip C., M. Wesche and D. Ready, 1988. “Second-
Language Acquisition Through Subject-Matter Learning: A Follow-up
Study at the University of Ottawa.” Language Learning, 38 (3): 433-475.
Iancu, Martha, 1997. “Adapting the Adjunct ModeI: A Case Study.”
In: Snow and Brinton (eds.) The Content-Based Classroom. New York:
Longman.
———, 1993. “Foreign Languages across the Curriculum: A Case
History from Earlham College and a Generic Rationale.” In: Kreuger and
Ryan (eds.) Language and Content: Discipline- and Content-Based
Approaches to Language Study. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Krueger, Merle and Frank Ryan, 1993a. “Resituating Foreign
Languages in the Curriculum.” In: Kreuger and Ryan (eds.) Language and
Content: Discipline- and Content-Based Approaches to Language Study.
Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
 ———, 1993b. Language and Content: Discipline- and Content-
Based Approaches to Language Study. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Lafayette, Robert C. and Michael Buscaglia, 1985. “Students
Learn Language via a Civilization Course—A Comparison of Second
Language Classroom Environments.” Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 18 (3): 323-342.
Leaver, Betty Lou and Stephen B. Stryker, 1989. “Content-Based
Instruction for Foreign Language Classrooms.” Foreign Language
Annals, 2: 269-275.
Lorenz, Eileen B. and Myriam Met, 1988. What It Means to Be an
Immersion Teacher. Rockville, MD: Office of Instruction and Program
Development, Montgomery County Public Schools.
Met, Myriam, 1989. “Walking On Water and Other Characteristics
Of Effective Elementary School Teachers.” Foreign Language Annals,
22:175-183.
———, 1991. “Learning Language through Content: Learning
Content through Language.” Foreign Language Annals, 24: 281-295.
———, 1994. “Teaching Content through A Second Language.” In:
Fred Genesee (ed.) Educating Second Language Children. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
———, 1998. “Curriculum Decision-Making in Content-Based
Second Language Teaching.” In: Jasone Cenoz and Fred Genesee (eds.)
Beyond Bilingualism: Multilingualism and Multilingual Education.
Clevedon, Eng.: Multilingual Matters.
———, 1999. “Making Connections.” In: June B. Phillips (ed.)
Foreign Language Standards: Linking Research, Theories, and Practices.
Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co.
Metcalf, Michael F., 1993. “Foreign Languages across the
Curriculum from a Social Science Perspective: The Minnesota Model.” In:
Kreuger and Ryan (eds.) Language and Content: Discipline- and Content-
Based Approaches to Language Study. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Majhanovich, Suzanne and S.B. Fish, 1988. “Training French
Immersion Teachers For The Primary Grades: An Experimental Course at
the University of Western Ontario.” Foreign Language Annals, 21: 311-
319.
Murphey, Tim, 1997. “Content-based Instruction in an EFL
Setting: Issues and Strategies.” In: Snow and Brinton (eds.) The Content-
Based Classroom. New York: Longman.
Palmer, Benjamin W., 1993. “Eastern Michigan University’s
Programs in Language and International Business: Disciplines with
Content.” In: Kreuger and Ryan (eds.) Language and Content: Discipline-
and Content-Based Approaches to Language Study. Lexington, MA: D.C.
Heath.
Reehm, Sue P. and Shirley A. Long, 1996. “Reading in the
Mathematics classroom.” Middle School Journal, 27 (5): 35-41.
 Rosen, Nina G. and Linda Sasser, 1997. “Sheltered English:
Modifying Content Delivery for Second Language Learners.” In: Snow and
Brinton (eds.) The Content-Based Classroom. New York: Longman.
Short, Deborah J., 1997. “Reading and ‘Riting and ... Social
Studies: Research on Integrated Language and Content In Secondary
Classrooms.” In: Snow and Brinton (eds.) The Content-Based Classroom.
New York: Longman.
Snow, Marguerite Ann, 1987. Immersion Teacher Handbook. Los
Angeles, CA: Center for Language Education and Research, University of
California.
———, 1993. “Discipline-Based Foreign Language Teaching:
Implications from ESL/EFL.” In: Kreuger and Ryan (eds.) Language And
Content: Discipline- and Content-Based Approaches To Language Study.
Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
———, 1997. “Teaching Academic Literacy Skills: Discipline Faculty
Take Responsibility.” In: Snow and Brinton (eds.) The Content-Based
Classroom. New York: Longman.
———, 1998. “Trends and Issues In Content-Based Instruction.” In:
William Grabe, C. Ferguson, R.B. Kaplan, G.R. Tucker and H.G.
Widdowson (eds.) Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
——— and Donna M. Brinton, 1988. “Content-based Language
Instruction: Investigating the Effectiveness of the Adjunct Model. TESOL
Quarterly, 22: 553-574.
——— and Donna M. Brinton, 1997. The Content-Based Classroom.
New York: Longman.
———, M. Met and F. Genesee, 1989. “A Conceptual Framework for
the Integration of Language and Content in Second/Foreign Language
Programs.” TESOL Quarterly, 23 (2): 201-217.
Stole, Carole, 1997. “Pedagogical Responses from Content
Faculty: Teaching Content and Language in History.” In: Snow and
Brinton (eds.) The Content-Based Classroom. New York: Longman.
Stoller, Fredricka L. and William Grabe, 1997. “A Six-T’s Approach
to Content-Based Instruction.” In: Snow and Brinton (eds.) The Content-
Based Classroom. New York: Longman.
Straight, H. Stephen, 1994. Language Across The Curriculum.
Translation Perspectives VII. Binghamton, NY: Center for Research in
Translation, State University of New York at Binghamton.
———, 1997. “Language-based content instruction.” In: Stephen B.
Stryker and Betty Lou Leaver (eds.) Content-Based Instruction for the
Foreign Language Classroom: Models and Methods. Washington DC:
Georgetown University Press (pp. 160-239.)
———, 1998. Personal communication.
Swaffar, Janet, 1993. “Constructing Tasks for Content Classes:
The Case for Generative Iteration.” In: Kreuger and Ryan (eds.) Language
and Content: Discipline- and Content-Based Approaches to Language
Study. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Swain, Merritt and Robert Keith Johnson, 1997. “Immersion
Education: A Category Within Bilingual Education.” In: Robert Keith
Johnson and Merrill Swain (eds.) Immersion Education: International
Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Wegrzecka-Kowalewski, Eva, 1997. “Content-Based Instruction: Is
It Possible In High School?” In: Snow and Brinton (eds.) The Content-
Based Classroom. New York: Longman.
Weigle, Sara C. and Linda Jensen, 1997. “Issues in Assessment for
Content- Based Instruction.” In: Snow and Brinton (eds.) The Content-
Based Classroom. New York: Longman.
Wesche, Marjorie B., 1993. “Discipline-Based Approaches to
Language Study: Research Issues and Outcomes.” In: Kreuger and Ryan
(eds.) Language And Content: Discipline- And Content-Based Approaches
To Language Study. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Widdowson, H.G., 1993. “The Relevant Conditions of Language
Use and Learning.” In: Kreuger and Ryan (eds.) Language and Content:
Discipline- and Content-Based Approaches to Language Study.
Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Myriam Met (Ed.D., University of Cincinnati) is Coordinator of Foreign
Languages for Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland where she
is responsible for curriculum development and implementation of K-8
immersion programs and foreign language instruction at the secondary
level with a foreign language enrollment of 34,000 students. Prior to
joining MCPS, she was with Cincinnati Public Schools for ten years, where
she served as a coordinating teacher and then supervisor of foreign
languages, ESL and bilingual education, K-12. Dr. Met was a Mellon
Fellow at the NFLC in 1992-1993, and since then has been an Adjunct
Fellow at the Center. Dr. Met has consulted on program development
and curriculum and has been involved with teacher training at all levels
of instruction in the U.S., Europe and Japan. She has published in
journals and professional books on topics related to second language
instruction, including several recent papers on content-based
instruction. She recently edited a volume of papers on foreign language
learning in the early grades entitled Critical Issues in Early Second
Language.

© by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. The University of

Minnesota
is an equal opportunity educator and employer; Privacy statement.

http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/modules/principles/decisions.html
Contact us.