��

A modified-sheltered and adjunct CBI in EFL Contexts:A Pre-Experimental Research Report

Kriengsukdi Syananondh Abstract

The present research discusses the rationale for using the concept of

CBI to teach English for specific purposes to a group of Thai-speaking

students. Literature on CBI offered insights and support related to the

proposed “modified-sheltered and adjunct CBI,” and research on its

effectiveness. Discussion begins with a look at the targeted group of students'

needs for language skills. Integrated language and content instruction provides

opportunities for students to use their previous background knowledge of

content area to support the acquisition of new language patterns and

vocabulary through the use of their academic discipline text, say, specifically

in this case ‘statistics’. The results of the study revealed that the proposed

‘modified-sheltered and adjunct CBI’ can be accepted as an alternative and

effective way for English language learners to develop their language skills

related to their academic discipline.

Key words: content-based instruction (CBI), EFL, modified-sheltered and adjunct CBI

(Concept) Content-Based Instruction (CBI)

CBI “modified-sheltered and adjunct CBI”

( )

(language patterns) (statistics)

, หน �า 71-90

��

Rationale

The meaning of content-based instruction (CBI) has been for long a

teaching method that emphasizes learning about something rather than

learning about language (Davies, 2003). To Davies, this teaching method has

proven very effective in ESL immersion programs. This interest has now

consequently spread to EFL classrooms around the world where teachers are

discovering that their students like CBI and are excited to learn English this

way. In other words, in a content-based EFL course, students use the English

language to acquire content knowledge through a variety of academically

based tasks. These tasks are designed to teach students discipline-based

content, and at the same time, help them develop proficiency in basic

language skills

Further, Peachey (2005) points out that the focus of a CBI lesson is on

the topic or subject matter. This could be anything that interests students. They

learn about this subject using the language they are trying to learn, rather than

their native language, as a tool for developing their linguistic ability in the

target language. This is thought to be a more natural way of developing

language ability. In content-based instruction, in addition, Brown (2004) states

that students practice all the language skills in a highly integrated,

communicative fashion while learning content such as science, mathematics,

and social studies. To him, content-based language instruction is valuable at

all levels of proficiency, but the nature of the content might differ according to

proficiency level. For beginners, the content often involves basic social and

interpersonal communication skills, but beyond the beginning level, the

content can become increasingly academic and complex. Similarly, Freeman

and Freeman (1998) maintain that EFL students will gain critical thinking

skills as well as basic reading and writing skills through adopting a content-

��

based English curriculum. For Short (1993), the most important benefit of

content-based English curriculum is that students learn the content knowledge

that reflects their needs and wants. According to Chamot and O'Malley

(1994), a content-based curriculum is a motivation factor for EFL students.

They not only feel that they are being challenged with a high-standard

curriculum, but also feel more prepared in classes because they understand

more.

Snow (2001) states that the three content-based models as well as

the total and partial immersion programs, in recent years, have evolved into

new formats and different features have been borrowed, attracting many of

the key distinctions. The anticipation of this trend has been proposed before

by Brinton, Snow, and Wesche (1989:23), who state that the key point to be

made is that depending on the setting, the configuration of the model may

differ significantly, and the features of the three models (theme-based,

sheltered, and adjunct) may tend to blend together.

Types of CBI

Prior to discussing the newly proposed teaching approach of the

present study, it seems appropriate to distinguish the types of CBI for some

pertinent backgrounds to some extent. Excluding immersion programs, which

are primarily concerned with ESL, at least three general models of content-

based (language) instruction exist: theme-based, adjunct, and sheltered

(Scarcella & Oxford, 1992). The theme-based model integrates the language

skills into the study of a theme (e.g., educational administration, information

technology, or statistics). In general, the theme must be of high interest to

students and must allow a wide variety of language skills to be practiced,

always with the aim of communicating about the theme. According to the

authors, this is the most useful and widespread form of the content-based

instruction nowadays and it is found in many innovative ESL and EFL

textbooks. Further, Davies, (2003) contends and explains that the

��

theme-based CBI is an effective method of combining language and content

learning, and it works well in EFL contexts. The author believes its use will

increase as teachers continue to design new syllabi in response to student

needs and interests. As a result, student motivation increases when they are

learning about something, rather than just studying language. The theme-

based CBI is particularly appealing in this respect because teachers can use

almost any content materials that they feel their students will enjoy. Thus, it

can be more beneficial for our students to truly understand something and

learn the language at the same time.

For the adjunct model, language and content courses are taught

separately but are carefully coordinated. In the sheltered model, the subject

matter is taught in simplified English tailored to students' English

proficiency level. Davies (2003) explains that the sheltered CBI and adjunct

CBI usually occur at universities in English L1 contexts. The goal of the

teachers using sheltered and adjunct CBI is to enable their ESL students to

study the same content material as regular English L1 students. Specifically,

sheltered CBI is called "sheltered" because learners are given special

assistance to help them understand regular classes. The most important

practice is for two teachers to 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 and essential 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, (Brinton et al,

1989 cited in Davies, 2003:1)

��

Unlike the sheltered model classes, the 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 EAP (English for academic purpose) or ESP (English

for specific purpose) classes where the emphasis is placed on acquiring

specific target vocabulary. Students will be trained to be familiarized 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.

From all mentioned above, it can be seen that CBI has been mainly

used to support specifically those ESL students who generally learn English

in an English speaking country in general and those in a bilingual native

country in particular. None have been really concerned with EFL students in

foreign country situations at all. In many EFL situations, the lack of teaching

materials, native English instructors, and experts in the students’ major area

of studies who are capable in English, for example, are of critical

importance. How can a model of CBI of the English language possibly be

implemented properly in a non-English speaking country like Thailand?

It is not too much to say that most EFL Thai graduate students have

been under the pressure of content courses and the demands of academic

English. More and more increasingly, they have to read authentic texts, not

simplified or contrived texts written for ESL (non-EFL) students only. EFL

students discussed here are referred to those to whom English is taught as a

foreign language rather than a second language. According to Kasper et al

(2000), EFL graduate students, in general, tend to have difficulty performing

the basic tasks required of all of them: reading efficiently, speaking, taking

notes and exams in class, and completing written assignments- especially

when engaged in higher education in English speaking universities. In

��

addition, as teaching assistants- as the case may be, although competent in

the subject matter of their disciplines, they may have trouble communicating

effectively in English. Consequently, it is suggested that Content-Based

Language Instruction (CBLI) may be used to solve these problems. This is

because CBLI courses have a double focus, that is, they teach language and

subject matter simultaneously, with the form and sequence of language

presentation guided by course content. (Note that the term CBLI used here is

synonymous with CBI.)

CBI allows learning to be more meaningful and situated. With

content-based EFL, language learning becomes more purposeful. That is,

EFL students learn the language, not “about” the language. English learning

becomes a means to an end, which can accelerate foreign language

acquisition. EFL students do not just learn how to construct an expository

piece of writing. For example, instead, they can write about the research

results based on the hypothesis they formed. Further, EFL students need to

learn technical vocabulary, which they normally lack. Vocabulary

knowledge has been closely linked with academic success (Senechal &

Cornell, 1993). CBI provides the most meaningful vocabulary learning

opportunities for EFL students because they not only learn technical

vocabulary but also use it in context. Therefore, vocabulary learning is not

only facilitated but also enduring.

The proposed ‘CBI’

In fact, CBI has some limitations when put into practice, like many

other instructional approaches. With an attempt to adopt the CBI model into

EFL teaching at the graduate level at a Thai university, the application of

CBI partly gave rise to the ‘modified –sheltered and adjunct CBI’ in the

EFL context. The reason for using sheltered and adjunct CBI is to enable

EFL students to study the same content material as regular English L1

students. As for the sheltered-CBI type, students could be given special

��

assistance to help them understand regular classes. However, in the actual

EFL teaching and learning situations or settings, especially in Thailand, it is

not practically feasible to fully adopt these CBI types into teaching/learning

EFL due to some limitations. For example, it is very difficult to provide two

teachers to work together to give instruction in a specific subject or a content

course. That is to say, one of the teachers is a content specialist, and the

other an EFL specialist. Another reason is that in the adjunct CBI, ESL

teachers who teach EAP or ESP classes tend to emphasize providing

specific target vocabulary and familiarizing the EFL students with their

specific content area.

As a result of the attempts to cope up with some disadvantages

outlined by Peachey (2005) and Davies (2003), the present researcher

discussed and proposed the ‘modified-sheltered and adjunct CBI’ in the EFL

context by taking the following modifications into consideration.

1. Generally, the focus of CBI English courses is on academic

language learning. In this case, as suggested by Snow (2001), the present

researcher used the content of the students’ major area of concentration as a

vehicle to present and practice the English language in class. The content

was intentionally used to reinforce language skills development in the

process. However, one of the disadvantages of CBI is that EFL teachers, like

many other ESP teachers, without a co-teacher, a content specialist, may be

easily deterred by the demands of content knowledge teaching and

discouraged by the amount of preparation they must do. Moreover, most

EFL teachers do not feel that they are qualified to teach the content area.

The possibility of having one instructor teach the content and the other teach

the language is very limited in Thailand. The solution proposed in the

present study is that EFL teachers may feel more confident if they use the

teaching material with the content already learned or understood by the EFL

students. For example, for a group of graduate students working for their

��

M. Sc. in Statistics, an introductory statistics text written in English could be

chosen to be used as an EFL text. In this case, there is no need for a co-

teacher, an expert in statistics. All the students will not demand content

knowledge but, on the contrary, become resource persons themselves for

their EFL class. As a by product, it will help reduce a great deal of

preparation and effort on the teachers' part in teaching EFL. It should be

noted that these EFL teachers are not responsible for students' content

learning, so they may feel at ease, thus creating a relaxing learning

atmosphere. Nevertheless, the EFL teachers need to be aware of the fact that

the main purpose in the ‘modified-sheltered-adjunct CBI’ is to enhance

students’ English language development through students’ self-interest and

familiarity with the content areas, not the content learning per se. The

emphasis should be then placed on the language components. The content

will play the supportive roles or vehicles for EFL learning.

2. In the case that the EFL text chosen is not explicitly prepared or

focused on English language learning, some students may feel confused or

may even feel that they are not being particularly taught English language

skills. This potential problem can be remedied by including some forms of

language focused follow-up exercises to help draw the students’ attention to

linguistic features within the materials and consolidate any difficult

vocabulary or grammar points. In other words, the solution proposed here is

that available materials related to general English grammatical structures

which can be easily found should be used throughout, when appropriate.

3. Generally, it can be hard to find information sources and texts that

students with lower levels of English competence can understand. By using

English language texts with the content with which students are already

familiar, learning may be greatly facilitated. Consequently, students with

low level of English competence may be able to follow the lesson content

��

with more confidence and have more time to pay attention to language

focus.

4. The primary concern of the present study was to conduct an

experimental research under the notion of ‘modified-sheltered-adjunct CBI.’

It was anticipated that this modified CBI could be alternatively used and

taught by an EFL teacher, especially when a content specialist is not

available. Through this modified CBI type, EFL teacher(s) could create a

course of study designed to unlock and build on their own students' interests.

It was also anticipated that this alternative EFL teaching approach

would be a beneficial foreign language instructional procedure as well as

being a beneficial procedure for graduate students in other fields. If

implemented in a proper manner, further steps can be taken to ensure better

success in EFL programs for graduate students in Thailand.

Methodology and Experimental Design

The participants

The proposed study was a pre-experimental research: one-group

pretest posttest design concerned with the effectiveness of the modified-

sheltered and adjunct CBI teaching approach. The participants were a group

(N=19) of graduate students pursuing an M. Sc. degree in Statistics. All of

them had studied English to date only in Thailand. Since it was not possible

for the present study to establish a control group, the present research design

was used.

The students’ past experience with the content (Statistics in Thai

for this case) was expected to help reduce their tension in attempting to

comprehend the meanings in context. Meanwhile, the EFL teachers can

focus their teaching on target language tasks without overtly worrying

about the translation of technical terms and specific content.

�0

Description of Course

Practice in reading and writing

Objectives

After completion of the course, students should be able to

comprehend and use college-level material. They should also be able to

develop concepts of critical thinking and inquiry as well as rhetoric functions

used in statistics a reasonable degree.

Contents of the course:

Reading Skills

This section first presents strategies for students to use in expanding

their vocabulary on an ongoing basis. Word roots and affixes introduced are

those commonly occurring in statistics terminology. The next section

previews the vocabulary from long readings. The objective is to develop a

basic vocabulary that would be learned at the college level. Accordingly,

words selected for study are statistics-related terms.

The rest of the section is devoted to selected reading passages and

development of useful reading skills, such as scanning, distinguishing fact

from opinion, making inferences, and drawing conclusions.

Writing Skills

In this section, students have a chance to extend the written use of

the rhetorical function at and beyond the sentence level. The focus is on

developing a paragraph with a main point and supporting details.

Students will be allowed to develop related topics of their own choice.

Materials for the modified-sheltered and adjunct CBI

The specifically designed teaching materials were chosen from ‘Uses

and Misuses/ Glossary / and Supplementary part’ appearing in each

chapter of the book: Introductory Statistics written in English by Prem S.

��

Mann (2004). For English grammatical structures, Syananondh’s course

book: English for Master Level Studies. (2005) was used.

Research instruments, Teaching procedure, and Pretest and

Posttest

From the review of literature of the present study, two possible ways

were found to justify the value of any proposed teaching methodology-a

foreign language instructional procedure, for example, in this study- the

modified-sheltered and adjunct CBI. They included both cognitive and

affective domains. For the cognitive domain, the students’ EFL achievement

drawn from the pretest and the posttest were used, while for the affective

domain, the data was specifically obtained through a structured interview

conducted by the researcher during and at the end of the course

Since the proposed modified-sheltered and adjunct CBI course was a

content-based (language) instruction, the tests should have covered both

content and language goals, but the emphasis was placed mainly on the use of

the English structures and vocabulary frequently appearing in statistics texts.

Student progress was assessed after classes were underway. A continuous

assessment technique was employed on the basis of weekly quizzes (each

session of the class meeting in both oral and written forms). Mostly, these

quizzes were used to check that content information was getting through to

the students and that thestudents could remember important vocabulary and

recognize necessary English structures or patterns. By the same token, the

students were constantly alerted and reminded of the goal /objective of the

learning tasks. Two longer equivalent tests used as a pretest and a posttest

were given at mid-term and at the end of the term. The reason for giving a

pretest at the midterm of the course was so that students could have some time

to gain familiarity with the teaching approach. Otherwise, this unfamiliarity

��

might have become an extraneous variable causing errors in assessment.

Additional reading related to statistics, such as research or dissertation

abstracts was also used as supplementary parts of the English practical

training. The students were given time at the beginning and some time at the

end of each class to express opinions concerning the current learning and

teaching situations concerning the advantages and disadvantages of the

process and content of the lesson or to answer a specific question given by the

teacher whenever it was deemed appropriate. Another useful exercise was to

allow the students to work on English structures and grammar points selected

from TOEFL preparation books related to the reading materials being used.

Findings and Discussion

Research question 1: To what extent were the students satisfied

with the teaching materials?

The students were asked to evaluate and compare their levels of

satisfaction with the course teaching materials in the beginning and by the

end of the class sessions. The students’ evaluation was based on Likert’s

five-rating scale. The data obtained were computed and are presented in

Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1

Students’ levels of satisfaction with the teaching materials

in the beginning and by the end of the course ___________________________________________________________

in the beginning by the end

Ratings of Satisfaction f % f %

_________________________________________________________

Very satisfied 0 00.00 10 52.63

Rather satisfied 8 42.10 7 36.84

Moderately satisfied 11 57.89 2 10.52

Rather unsatisfied 0 00.00 0 00.00

Very unsatisfied 0 00.00 0 00.00

___________________________________________________

��

Total 19 100.00 19 100.00

___________________________________________________________

N=19

Table 2

T-test of the means between students’ Rating levels of satisfaction

with the teaching materials in the beginning

and by the end of the course ___________________________________________________________

Ratings of Satisfaction Mean S t-value one-tail p

___________________________________________________________

in the beginning of the course 3.42 0.42

8.00 <0.05

by the end of the course 4.42 0.35

___________________________________________________________

N=19

Finding 1

The data obtained showed that in the beginning of the course only

42 % of the students were rather satisfied with the teaching materials while

57.89% were moderately satisfied with them. By the end of the course, 52%

of the students were very satisfied with the teaching materials and 36.84% of

them were rather satisfied with them. Only 10.52% were moderately

satisfied with the teaching materials. In terms of the mean ratings between

student’s levels of satisfaction with the teaching materials in the beginning

and by the end of the course, the former was lower than the latter at <0.05

level of significance statistically.

Research question 2: To what extent did the proposed teaching

approach successfully increase the students’

English achievement?

��

The students were given a pretest at the midterm of the course

and a posttest at the end of the course. Both tests were equivalent tests

which were mainly focused on English syntactical structures or language

patterns and vocabulary used instatistics texts. These tests also included

the knowledge of reading and writing strategies, using cloze technique

and multiple choice. The mean scores, obtained from the pretest and

posttest, are shown in Table 3.

Table 3

T-test and mean scores of the students’ English achievement

obtained from the pretest and posttest

_________________________________________________ Test Mean S t-value one-tail p

__________________________________________________________

Pretest 46.10 7.33

7.67 <.05

Posttest 58.29 8.21

___________________________________________________________

N=19

Finding 2

The mean scores from the pretest and the posttest and the t-test for

two dependent means with a significance level of <0.05 indicated that the

mean score of the posttest was higher than that of the pretest. This finding

may also imply that the proposed teaching approach of the present study

significantly helped improve the students’ English learning achievement to a

certain level.

Research question 3: What were affective factors as perceived

by the students toward the proposed teaching

approach?

First, the students were interviewed and observed informally and

��

periodically in class as a whole. By using structured questions, the students

were asked to freely express their opinions (either in English or Thai) toward

their satisfaction with the teaching approach, the teaching materials, the

learning activities, and some affective variables such as satisfaction with

classroom atmosphere, motivation, and anxiety in learning, etc. Since the

class was quite small with only 19 students, the researcher could

qualitatively collect essential andprimary data with no difficulty. The data

were then analyzed and classified in order to make a list of students’

perception toward the affective variables related to several aspects involved.

After this, a checklist-type questionnaire was then formulated and

implemented at the end of the semester. The obtained data are presented in

Table 4.

Table 4

Frequencies and percentages of the students’ affective factors

related to the modified-sheltered and adjunct CBI

method of learning and teaching

___________________________________________________________Affective factors f percent

1. familiarity with the material content makes the

learning atmosphere very relaxing 19 100

2. with past experience with statistics, recognizing

vocabulary become much easier 18 94.74

3. having more time to concentrate on learning

and memorizing English language patterns 15 78.95

4. feeling very familiar with the teaching materials 15 78.95

5. having positive attitude toward the teaching approach 14 73.68

6. knowledge of the content area helps understand

the language usage better 14 73..68

7. feeling content with the lessons while learning 14 73.68

8. feeling that the English lessons are not very difficult 13 68.42

9. willing to help EFL instructors to clarify unclear statements 13 68.42

��

10. feeling proactive in learning when playing

the role of resource person in class 12 63.16

__________________________________________________________N=19

Finding 3

Data from table 4 show that one hundred percent of the students

agreed that the learning atmosphere was very relaxing, which was due to

their familiarity with the learning material content, while about ninety

percent responded that with past experience with statistics, recognizing a lot

of vocabulary involved became much easier. For other factors related to the

affective factors, the numbers of students who were satisfied ranged from

63 to 78 percent. This finding seems to lead to the conclusion that their

familiarity with the content of the reading task made them feel at ease with

the English lessons.

Note that this study also attempted to ascertain if there were any

factors related to affective domain in using the proposed teaching approach

among the students. In other words, an attempt was made to find affective

factors that seem to play a significant role in the students’ EFL achievement.

While it was not intended to conclude that the students’ opinions be a

decisive factor in choosing what type or model of teaching approach should

be used, knowing what satisfies the students and what stimulates EFL

students’ interest can play a part in such decisions.

Conclusion

It is not too much to say that most EFL graduate students who study

in English for specific purpose courses expect to build their language skills.

They are normally required to read textbooks that already assume they have

that domain of specific knowledge. It is possible for them to become

frustrated and lose confidence in their competence as an EFL student if they

��

cannot adequately comprehensively understand the text content. This lack of

comprehension could result in disinterest and eventual failure. We all know

that students develop positive attitudes towards subjects in which they are

successful. If this situation could be

realized for EFL Thai graduate students taking an English course as a part of

degree fulfillment, then we can imagine the beneficial impact a textbook

used in the ‘modified-sheltered and adjunct CBI’ could have more or less on

an EFL student.

The present modified CBI can be an effective method of combining

language and content learning. It works well in EFL contexts in the case that

there is no content expert available. Its implementation will increase as

teachers continue to design new syllabi in response to student needs and

interests. It has long been recognized by language teachers, educators, and the

like that student motivation tends to increase when students are learning about

something, rather than just studying language. The present approach is

suitable for the EFL situation in Thailand because teachers can use content

materials in which their students already have some background. However,

this notion calls for further investigation if the EFL teacher himself/ herself

has practically no ideas or background concerning teaching materials for the

target group of students. Will he/she be comfortable using the present

proposed approach of teaching or not? This question still remains ahypothesis

waiting for future interested researchers.

Nowadays, luckily there are many EFL textbooks that can be used

for theme based CBI classes and they usually contain a variety of readings

followed by vocabulary and comprehension exercises. These can be applied

directly to the present language learning approach-the modified-sheltered

and adjunct CBI. It is possible to create some really interesting classroom

materials as long as the need for comprehensibility of the EFL students is

��

present. Moreover, the students who have more knowledge of the content

seem to play an active role and show some control of the class learning, that

is to say, they seem to exhibit more class attention than ever before.

From the researcher’s actual experience during the experiment, it is

advised that the EFL instructors try to involve other instructors- particularly

those from other content areas related to English teaching. This could help

us to gain more confidence both in terms of finding sources of information

and in having the support of others in helping us to evaluate our

comprehension and comprehensibility of the content area.

In addition, there are a few important points that the teachers should

keep in mind. First, be aware that EFL students may help us-their EFL

instructors- decide what topics and subjects the lessons should be choose or

be based around. Finally, find out how they are satisfied with the lessons. In

the end our EFL students will be the indicators of the success of our EFL

class.

Reference

Brinton, Donna M., Marguerite Ann Snow, and Marjorie Bingham

Wesche. (1989).Content-Based Second Language Instruction.

New York: Newbury.

Brown, Clara Lee. (2004). Content Based ESL Curriculum and Academic

Language Proficiency. cbrown26 [at] utk.edu

http://web.utk.edu/~tpte/scf_esl_f_cb.html The Internet TESL

Journal, Vol. X, No. 2, February 2004 http://iteslj.org/

Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook:

Implementing the cognitive academic language learning

approach. New York, NY: Longman.

��

Davies, Stephen. (2003). Content Based Instruction in EFL Contexts.

sdavies [at] miyazaki-mic.ac.jp Miyazaki International College

(Miyazaki, Japan) The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. IX, No. 2,

February 2003 Retrieved on 10/7/2005

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Davies-CBI.html

Freeman, Y., & Freedman, D. (1998). ESL/EFL teaching principles for

success. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Kasper, Loretta F., Babbitt, Marcia; Mlynarczyk, Rebecca Williams;

Brinton, Donna M.; Rosenthal, Judith W. ; Myers, Peter Master,

Sharon A.; Tillyer, Joy Egbert, David A. , and Wood, Louise S.

(2000). Content-Based College ESL Instruction. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Pp. xiv + 227.

Mann, Prem S. (2004). Introductory Statistics. 5th Edition, Singapore:

John Wiley & Sons. Inc.

Peachey, Nik. (2005). Content based instruction. © BBC World Service,

Bush House, Strand, London WC2B 4PH, UK © British

Council, 10 Spring Gardens, London SW1A 2BN, UK,

Retrieved on 2/12/2005 from

http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/methodology/content.shtml

Scarcella, R., & Oxford, R. (1992). The tapestry of language learning:

The individual in the communicative classroom. Boston: Heinle &

Heinle.

Senechal, M., & Cornell, E. (1993). Vocabulary acquisition through

shared reading experiences. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(4),

360-374.

Short, D. J. (1993). Assessing integrated Language and content

instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 627-656.

Snow, Marguerite Ann. (2001). Content-Based and Immersion Models

for Second and Foreign Language Teaching. In Celce-Murcia,

Marianne (ed), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign

Language. 3rd edition, Heinle and Heinle, U.S.A.

�0

Syananondh, K. (2005). 205500: English for Master Level Studies.

Department of Western Languages, Faculty of Humanities,

Naresuan University: pp 110.