Integrated Content-Based Method
Karen A. McCay
29 July 2017
The CLD instructional approach, which most informs my teaching, is the ICB (Integrated Content-Based) method of instruction. This method fits very well into a secondary English class. Its 3 key components, which benefit all students, are the use of a variety of media for instruction, the development of students’ thinking skills, and the use of student-centered instruction (Herrera & Murry, 2016, p. 228). These components more specifically benefit CLD students, as well. Their importance to my personal teaching are everything because I’m a 21st century teacher, who uses a variety of multimedia on a daily basis to teach skills-based thinking and collaboration-based mastery of the standards rather than a specific list of content each year, and “student-centered instruction” is generally the evaluation measure by which I check my lesson plans each week because in the 21st century these practices are regarded as good teaching by most experts in the field of education (Trilling and Fadel, 2009, pp. 24-36). Allowing my students to run activities and direct their own learning only increases their educational gains during the year, and reflecting upon my plans prior to instruction to ensure I have effectively planned each activity for engagement, student-centered learning, and a variety of media ensures that all students--including my CLD learners--have multiple opportunities to master their learning objectives in each lesson.
The ICB method resonates with me because it has been shown through data to improve the scores of CLD students’ writing when used in team-based implementation across multiple content areas in thematic units using authentic activities, which are directly tied to content and language standards (Herrera & Murry, 2016, pp. 224-225). I love data-based arguments for why a method is effective; data doesn’t lie. Herrera & Murry (2016) provide a variety of sources to preservice teachers or teachers new to the theory, which make its initial use very accessible. Their text offers an outline for planning lessons using the ICB method as well as a list of questions teachers can ask during each step of the planning process (pp. 234-237). Again, this information would benefit all students, not only CLD learners. Many students’ schools of origin have unique modes of instruction, which have impacted their learning and left them needed better strategies for processing new information.
Using the key components of the ICB method with all students, especially student-centered instruction and individualized objectives, would benefit all students in secondary English and improve their writing scores without question--it already does. Instructors can use students to individualize their own objectives on the secondary level to take some of the workload off teachers and teach them early in the year to be good goal writers, themselves. This skill is another invaluable 21st century skill they need in the future and one we truly don’t have time to do for 130-160 students. We have time to READ that many objectives and analyze their effectiveness. We certainly have time to read ⅕ that many if we have students write goals in teams on the secondary level, and if we ask students to write their own individualized goals from the class objective, we have increased their cognitive demand as well as their use of academic skills and language skills even at the onset of the lesson, establishing clear expectations from the beginning of the year and the beginning of each day that they will conduct all learning and all work because they are the center of everything--even the writing of their objectives (Dean, Hubbell, Pitler, & Stone, 2012, pp. 2-9).
Other 21st Century Learning:
Solution Fluency to Differentiate for Students
Visual Fluency to Differentiate in the 21st Century
Using TPACK as a Planning Tool
Or Back to CLD Instructional Approaches:
CLD Instructional Approaches
References
Dean, C. B., Hubbell, E. R., Pitler, H., & Stone, B. J. ( 2012). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement, 2nd edition. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Herrera, S. G., & Murry, K. G. (2016). Mastering ESL/EFL methods: Differentiated instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students, 3rd edition. Boston: Pearson.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st Century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Karen A. McCay
29 July 2017
The CLD instructional approach, which most informs my teaching, is the ICB (Integrated Content-Based) method of instruction. This method fits very well into a secondary English class. Its 3 key components, which benefit all students, are the use of a variety of media for instruction, the development of students’ thinking skills, and the use of student-centered instruction (Herrera & Murry, 2016, p. 228). These components more specifically benefit CLD students, as well. Their importance to my personal teaching are everything because I’m a 21st century teacher, who uses a variety of multimedia on a daily basis to teach skills-based thinking and collaboration-based mastery of the standards rather than a specific list of content each year, and “student-centered instruction” is generally the evaluation measure by which I check my lesson plans each week because in the 21st century these practices are regarded as good teaching by most experts in the field of education (Trilling and Fadel, 2009, pp. 24-36). Allowing my students to run activities and direct their own learning only increases their educational gains during the year, and reflecting upon my plans prior to instruction to ensure I have effectively planned each activity for engagement, student-centered learning, and a variety of media ensures that all students--including my CLD learners--have multiple opportunities to master their learning objectives in each lesson.
The ICB method resonates with me because it has been shown through data to improve the scores of CLD students’ writing when used in team-based implementation across multiple content areas in thematic units using authentic activities, which are directly tied to content and language standards (Herrera & Murry, 2016, pp. 224-225). I love data-based arguments for why a method is effective; data doesn’t lie. Herrera & Murry (2016) provide a variety of sources to preservice teachers or teachers new to the theory, which make its initial use very accessible. Their text offers an outline for planning lessons using the ICB method as well as a list of questions teachers can ask during each step of the planning process (pp. 234-237). Again, this information would benefit all students, not only CLD learners. Many students’ schools of origin have unique modes of instruction, which have impacted their learning and left them needed better strategies for processing new information.
Using the key components of the ICB method with all students, especially student-centered instruction and individualized objectives, would benefit all students in secondary English and improve their writing scores without question--it already does. Instructors can use students to individualize their own objectives on the secondary level to take some of the workload off teachers and teach them early in the year to be good goal writers, themselves. This skill is another invaluable 21st century skill they need in the future and one we truly don’t have time to do for 130-160 students. We have time to READ that many objectives and analyze their effectiveness. We certainly have time to read ⅕ that many if we have students write goals in teams on the secondary level, and if we ask students to write their own individualized goals from the class objective, we have increased their cognitive demand as well as their use of academic skills and language skills even at the onset of the lesson, establishing clear expectations from the beginning of the year and the beginning of each day that they will conduct all learning and all work because they are the center of everything--even the writing of their objectives (Dean, Hubbell, Pitler, & Stone, 2012, pp. 2-9).
Other 21st Century Learning:
Solution Fluency to Differentiate for Students
Visual Fluency to Differentiate in the 21st Century
Using TPACK as a Planning Tool
Or Back to CLD Instructional Approaches:
CLD Instructional Approaches
References
Dean, C. B., Hubbell, E. R., Pitler, H., & Stone, B. J. ( 2012). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement, 2nd edition. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Herrera, S. G., & Murry, K. G. (2016). Mastering ESL/EFL methods: Differentiated instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students, 3rd edition. Boston: Pearson.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st Century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.