Introduction
Baecher et al. article was chosen because it presents the challenges encountered in planning the language objectives, particularly in content-based English as a Second Language instruction. The authors argue that in the PreK-12 ESL context, the teacher gives instructions to the learners with little or no preparation in the second language teaching. The ESL teacher may collaborate with the classroom and content teacher counterparts in co-planning integrated language instruction and content in such a setting. However, the framework for content, language, and goals planning provided by the ESL and the specialist in mainstream faces various problems. The scale focuses more on content instead of the language learning goals. The paper presents an article critique especially based on the language and content planning.
Main body
The topic is relevant to content-based ESL because it addresses preparedness among ESL teachers in planning for language instruction, especially at the practicum level. By raising this question, educators in ESL will ensure that their students receive enough preparation to handle the challenges encountered in planning for language instruction in content-based instruction. The article is particularly relevant to me as an individual because it brings to light the importance of having learning objectives and a lesson plan to help identify the focus of a lesson. McCutcheon and Milner (2002) and Wiggins and McTighe (2005) argue that in most cases, teachers consider how appealing their activities are instead of basing the lesson planning around the lesson objectives. This shows that it is essential to focus on the language and the objectives of teaching a particular content emphasizing the importance given to objectives in this article.
Generally, the paper explores the ideas used during the CBI lesson plan, for instance, those used by student teachers during their final year of the MA TESOL program. The article identified seven plans when they grouped them in order of the typology formed for clarity and noticing areas of struggle in the project, especially during use in the ESL PreK-12 classes by the teacher. The study points to the importance of lesson objectives. Gandara, Maxwell-Jolly, and Driscoll (2005), Menken and Antunez (2001) point out that in PreK-12 ESL context, the teachers provide a lot of instruction for the English Language learners with no or little preparation in a second language teaching. In such a setting, the teachers may be required to work together with their classroom and content teachers to co-plan for integrated language and content instructions. However, such collaboration faces serious challenges.
The study revealed that the participants experienced more challenges in designing the content objectives and language objectives. The participants also indicated an inclination to develop language objectives that were focused more on vocabulary and four linguistic skills and significantly less on the grammatical functions, structures, or the learning strategies of a language. The study’s findings indicate that the participants experience several difficulties in crafting the language objectives. One of the significant difficulties in developing objectives for different lessons was that each study had other objectives. Instead, most participants confused language objectives for higher-level expectations for English as second language learners.
Moreover, these objectives were often vague in that they were competitive, making the teachers not cover everything due to limited time. By studying TLA, teachers learn the appropriate methods used in teaching languages and acquire more knowledge. However, TLA makes them focus on only the prepared units, hence influencing the teacher’s capacity to recognize the critical structures of language (Baecher et al., 2014). Although their work is not easy, teachers are asked to develop clear goals for the learners during the lesson plan.
Baecher et al. (2014) used various methods to study the challenges experienced in planning language objectives. They used practicum teachers and student teachers who were under constant supervision. Lessons plans from various candidates were also used to determine language objectives. Language objectives were analyzed to check their focus on vocabulary, function, structure, strategy, sentence frames, or utilization of the sub-skills found within the four skills, like the use of context clues in reading. The paper also examined the type of challenges encountered by students who showed unsatisfactory language content objectives. Baecher et al. (2014) concluded that students had more difficulties in the content objectives than the language plan. However, the elementary objectives were better than the secondary ones because they were easier hence properly prepared.
The language objectives’ challenges may have been due to not knowing what language objective was and what material fit a particular objective. Additionally, teachers should focus on the structure and functions of the language rather than the vocabulary (Baecher et al., 2014). The language objectives shown in the study conducted had a narrow range of grammatical features indicating that during their course work, the teachers were not widely exposed to different ways of training. Moreover, the small range of the components may result in a teacher lacking confidence or unpreparedness while selecting the language objectives.
During the practicum, teachers should be allowed to see how the cooperating teachers plan their objectives. They should also be taught the differences between the ELA and ESL objectives and focus wider on different language objectives. Objectives in CBI instructions are fundamental, and teacher trainers should emphasize that importance. In other words, teachers must work together in developing the lesson plan and objectives. It is important for the teachers to be properly exposed to improve their use of grammar in developing lesson objectives.
Bigelow and Ranney (2005) found out that if teachers are not exposed to methods of teaching CBI lessons with a focused form, they are likely to have a narrow range of grammatical features that focus on form (Doughty & Williams, 1998). Richards (1969) argues that since teacher candidates are likely to avoid risky practicum observations, they are likely to choose those language objectives that they are comfortable teaching. Teachers may not be able to teach grammar in methods that do not match their predetermined notions of how to do it.
This article discusses an essential aspect of a teacher’s activity because they have to improve their content and language objectives. Baecher et al. (2014) wrote an excellent article where a teacher can look for solutions by looking at the failures and successes of the samples used in the report. For example, a teacher can learn more about the significant differences between the ELA and the ESL content objectives and avoid majoring in vocabulary while planning their lessons. Also, a teacher must know that a student’s understanding should come first before the language objectives. Failure to put the learners’ competencies firsts results in poor outcomes in the objectives.
Furthermore, the article’s content has been presented in that the authors have properly arranged their work in an orderly manner, making the readers understand their work. However, while conducting a study on lesson planning, they used materials from the same place to determine findings. Using data from the same source may have biased the results obtained, making the article unfair. I think the research could have used materials from students enrolled in different colleges to conduct a well-balanced study. This study may not be precise as it was conducted within a short period. In other words, good research should have been done in a period of more than a year.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the proposed solutions, such as mentoring the student-teacher by more experienced teachers, are essential in lesson planning. When a teacher has the knowledge needed in the area, they can quickly educate their learners. Furthermore, the teachers can be taught more on language and content during their coursework and practicum. Therefore, the authors’ article is important in assisting teachers in teaching learners studying English as a second language.
References
Baecher, L., Farnsworth, T., & Ediger, A. (2014). The challenges of planning language objectives in content-based ESL instruction. Language Teaching Research, 18(1), 118-136.
Bigelow, M. H., & Ranney, S. E. (2005). Pre-service ESL teachers’ knowledge about language and its transfer to lesson planning. In Applied linguistics and language teacher education (pp. 179-200). Springer, Boston, MA.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom SLA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gándara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English language learners: A survey of California teachers’ challenges, experiences, and professional development needs. Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.
Mccutcheon, G., & Milner, H. R. (2002). A contemporary study of teacher planning in a high school English class. Teachers and teaching, 8(1), 81-94.
Menken, K., & Antunez, B. (2001). An overview of the preparation and certification of teachers working with limited English proficient (LEP) students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Richards, J.C, (1996). Teachers’ maxims in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, (30), 281–296
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. 2nd ed. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.