Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:57:16.230Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Content-Centered Learning in the U.S.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2008

JoAnn (Jodi) Crandall
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Although estimates of the number of language minority students in U.S. schools vary, there is consensus that the numbers are increasing dramatically. In 1980, there were 24 million language minority individuals living in the United States, including nearly 8 million school-age children and 2.6 million children under age five, one or both of whose parents spoke a language other than English at home (Waggoner 1992). Of the school age children, an estimated 3–5 million had limited English proficiency. Between 1980 and 1990, according to the U.S. Census, the Asian-American population more than doubled and the Hispanic-American population increased by more than 50 percent. Many major metro-politan school districts report a student population speaking more than 60 or 70 different languages, and in one of these, Los Angeles, more than 50 percent of the school age population is language minority.

Type
Approaches to Second Language Teaching
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 13 , March 1992 , pp. 110 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adamson, H. D. 1993. Academic competence: Theory and classroom practice. Preparing ESL students for content classes. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1989. Science for all Americans: A project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. [ED 309 059]Google Scholar
Benesch, S. 1992. Sharing responsibilities: An alternative to the adjunct model. College ESL. 2.1–10.Google Scholar
Benesch, S. (ed.) 1988. Ending remediation: Linking ESL and content in higher education. Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Bullock Committee. 1975. A language for life. London: Department of Education and Sciences, Her Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Cantoni-Harvey, G. 1987. Content-area language instruction: Approaches and strategies., Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Chamot, A. U and O'Malley, J. M. 1988. Language development through content: Mathematics/Learning strategies for problem solving. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Chamot, A. U and O'Malley, J. M. and Kupper, L.. 1992. Building bridges: Content and learning strategies for ESL. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.Google Scholar
Cleland, B. and Evans, R. 1984. Learning English through general science. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire. [ESL Topic Books.]Google Scholar
Cleland, B. and Evans, R. 1987a. Learning English through topics about Australia. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire. [ESL Topic Books.]Google Scholar
Cleland, B. and Evans, R. 1987b. Learning English through topics about Asia. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire. [ESL Topic Books.]Google Scholar
Cochran, C. 1989. Strategies for involving LEP students in the all-English-medium classroom: A cooperative learning approach. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. [ED 337 039]Google Scholar
Collier, V. P. 1987. Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic purposes. TESOL Quarterly. 21.617–641.Google Scholar
Collier, V. P. 1989. How long? A synthesis on research on academic achievement in a second language. TESOL Quarterly. 23.509–531.Google Scholar
Crandall, J. A. 1979. Adult vocational ESL. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics. [ED 176 592]Google Scholar
Crandall, J. A. 1990. Discussion of B. Mohan's “Integration of language and content”. In Simich-Dudgeon, C. (ed.) Proceedings of the first research symposium on limited English proficient students’ issues.Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Education, Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs. 429–436. [ED 341 260]Google Scholar
Crandall, J. A., Christian, D., Simich-Dudgeon, C. and Willetts, K. 1987. Integrating language and content instruction for language minority students. Wheaton, MD: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. [ED 291 247]Google Scholar
Crandall, J. A., Dale, T. C., Rhodes, N. C. and Spanos, G. 1987. English skills for algebra: Math language activities for algebra students. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents/Center for Applied Linguistics. [Tutor book and Student book.]Google Scholar
Cuevas, G. J. 1984. Mathematics learning in English as a second language. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 15.134–144.Google Scholar
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. Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center, California State University, Los Angeles. 3–49.Google Scholar
Curtain, H. A. and Pesola, C. A. 1988. Languages and children—Making the match: Foreign language instruction in the elementary school. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
DeAvila, E. A., Duncan, S. E. and Navarrete, C. J. 1987. Cooperative learning: Integrating language and content-area instruction. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. [ED 291 245]Google Scholar
Early, M. 1990. Enabling first and second language learners in the classroom. Language Arts. 67.567–575.Google Scholar
Early, M. and Tang, G. M. 1991. Helping ESL students cope with content-based texts. TESL Canada Journal. 8.2.34–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eastmond, N. and Mitchell, J. 1990. Working smarter: Two case studies using foreign language as a tool and subject matter as focus. CALICO Journal. 7.4.19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, H. P., Wesche, M., Krashen, S., Clement, R. and Kruidenier, B. 1984. Second language acquisition through subject matter learning: A study of the sheltered psychology classes at the University of Ottawa. Canadian Modern Language Review. 41.268–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enright, D. S. and McCloskey, M. L. 1988. Integrating English. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Faltis, C. J. 1993. Joinfostering: Adapting teaching strategies for the multilingual classroom. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Fathman, A. K. and Quinn, M. E. 1989. Science for ESL learners. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. Ferguson, T. (ed.) 1990. ESL and the mainstream. [Special issue of TESOL in Context. 1.1.]Google Scholar
Ferguson, T. (ed.) 1990. ESL and the mainstream. [Special issue of TESOL inContext. 1.1.]Google Scholar
Freeman, D., Freeman, Y. and Gonzales, G. 1987. Success for LEP students: The Sunnyside sheltered English program. TESOL Quarterly. 21.361–367.Google Scholar
Genesee, F. 1987. Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual education. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Green, R. (ed.) 1988. The international approach: Learning English through content area study. Volume 2: Curriculum materials developed for use at the International High School, LaGuardia Community College. New York: La Guardia Community College. [ED 304 016]Google Scholar
Hamayan, E. V. and Perlman, R. 1990. Helping language minority students after they exit from bilingual/ESL programs: A handbook for teachers. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. [ED 321 583]Google Scholar
Hirsch, L. 1988. Language across the curriculum: A model for ESL students in content courses. In Benesch, S. (ed.) Ending remediation: Linking ESL and content in higher education. Washington, DC: TESOL. 71–89.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, T. and Waters, A. 1987. English for specific purposes: A learning-centered approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaquith, P. (ed.) 1991. Content-based language teaching. [Special issue of Cross Currents. 18.2]Google Scholar
Johns, A. M. 1992. What is the relationship between content-based instruction and English for specific purposes? CATESOL Journal. 5.71–75.Google Scholar
Jurasek, R. 1988. Integrating foreign languages into the college curriculum. Modern Language Journal. 72.2.52–58.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Leaver, B. L. and Stryker, S. B. 1989. Content-based instruction in foreign language classrooms. Foreign Language Annals. 22.269–275.Google Scholar
MacDonald, C. A. 1990. Crossing the threshold into standard three: The consolidation main report of the threshold project. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council.Google Scholar
Mohan, B. A. 1979. Relating language teaching and content teaching. TESOL Quarterly. 13.171–182.Google Scholar
Mohan, B. 1986. Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 1989. Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
Northcutt, L. and Watson, D. 1986. S.E.T.: Sheltered English teaching handbook. Carlsbad, CA: Northcutt, Watson, Gonzales.Google Scholar
Penfield, J. 1987. ESL: The regular classroom teacher's perspective. TESOL Quarterly. 21.21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richard-Amato, P. A. and Snow, M. A (eds.) 1992. The multicultural classroom: Readings for content-area teachers. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Rigg, P. and Allen, V. G. (eds.) 1989. When they don't all speak English: Integrating the ESL student into the regular classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Rodseth, J. V. 1978. The Molteno Project report. Grahamstown: Rhodes University.Google Scholar
Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B. and Conant, F. R. 1992. Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning, University of California, Santa Cruz. [SE 053 334]Google Scholar
Secada, W. 1992. Evaluating mathematics education of LEP students in a time of educational change. In Simich-Dudgeon, C. (ed.) Proceedings of the Second National Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Student Issues: Focus on evaluation and measurement, Volume 2.Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Education, Office of Bilingual and Minority Languages Affairs. 209–256.Google Scholar
Short, D., Seufert-Bosco, M. and Grognet, A. G. 1991a. Of the people: U.S. history. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents/Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Short, D., Seufert-Bosco, M. and Grognet, A. G. 1991b. By the people, for the people: U.S. Government and citizenship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents/Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Snow, C. E. 1987. Beyond conversation: Second language learners’ acquisition of description and evaluation. In Lantolf, J. and Labarca, A. (eds.) Research in second language learning: Focus on the classroom. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 3–16.Google Scholar
Snow, C. E. 1987. Beyond conversation: Second language learners' acquisition of description and evaluation. In Lantolf, J. and Labarca, A. (eds.) Research in second language learning: Focus on the classroom. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 3–16.Google Scholar
Snow, M. and Brinton, D. M. 1988. Content-based language instruction: Investigating the effectiveness of the adjunct model. TESOL Quarterly. 22.553–574.Google Scholar
Snow, M. and Brinton, D. M. (eds.) 1992. Content-based instruction. [Special issue of CATESOL Journal. 5.]Google Scholar
Sudermann, D. P. and Cisar, M. A. 1992. Foreign language across the curriculum: A critical appraisal. Modern Language Journal. 76.295–308.Google Scholar
Waggoner, D. 1992. The increasing multiethnic and multilingual diversity of the U.S.: Findings from the 1990 Census. TESOL matters. 2.5.12–13.Google Scholar
Warren, B. and Rosebery, A. S. 1992. Science education as a sense-making practice: Implications for assessment. In Simich-Dudgeon, C. (ed.) Proceedings of the Second National Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Student Issues: Focus on evaluation and measurement, Volume 2. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Bilingual and Minority Languages Affairs. 273–304.Google Scholar
Weideman, A. 1991. Starting English. Bloemfontein: English Language Materials and Programmes, Urban Foundation.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. 1983. Learning purpose and language use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar