Content-Based Language Instruction and Its Benefits
![Picture](/uploads/2/8/8/6/28861675/518898933.jpg)
What is it?
There have been many methods used in the past when teaching languages. The method, which has gained much ground in the recent past, is called Content-Based Instruction (CBI). Brown (2007) refers back to Brinton, Snow, and Wesche (1989) in order to define CBI as “the integration of content learning with language teaching aims. More specifically, it refers to the concurrent study of language and subject matter, with the form and sequence of language presentation dictated by content material” (p. 55). Therefore, CBI is a method of teaching language through mainstream content. When making the distinction between CBI and other previously used methods of instruction, Stryker and Leaver (1997) state “content-based foreign language instruction, on the other hand, encourages students to learn a new language by playing real pieces—actually using that language, from the very first class, as a real means of communication. Furthermore, the philosophy of contentbased instruction (CBI) aims at empowering students to become independent learners and continue the learning process beyond the classroom” (p. 3). CBI is dedicated to the student and provokes the use of language by the student from the very first day. Students are not studying language as a separate entity, but instead are learning a language through content. Therefore, rather than basing a course on different skills or language functions, the course is based on specific content, such as science and technology, and the skills, forms and functions emerge automatically.
There have been many methods used in the past when teaching languages. The method, which has gained much ground in the recent past, is called Content-Based Instruction (CBI). Brown (2007) refers back to Brinton, Snow, and Wesche (1989) in order to define CBI as “the integration of content learning with language teaching aims. More specifically, it refers to the concurrent study of language and subject matter, with the form and sequence of language presentation dictated by content material” (p. 55). Therefore, CBI is a method of teaching language through mainstream content. When making the distinction between CBI and other previously used methods of instruction, Stryker and Leaver (1997) state “content-based foreign language instruction, on the other hand, encourages students to learn a new language by playing real pieces—actually using that language, from the very first class, as a real means of communication. Furthermore, the philosophy of contentbased instruction (CBI) aims at empowering students to become independent learners and continue the learning process beyond the classroom” (p. 3). CBI is dedicated to the student and provokes the use of language by the student from the very first day. Students are not studying language as a separate entity, but instead are learning a language through content. Therefore, rather than basing a course on different skills or language functions, the course is based on specific content, such as science and technology, and the skills, forms and functions emerge automatically.
![Picture](/uploads/2/8/8/6/28861675/4242237.jpeg?1417385871)
CBI, a term mostly used in the United States is also referred to as Content-Based Language Teaching (CBLT), as well as Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) when the language being taught is a foreign language or as a lingua franca (Lyster & Ballinger, 2011). There is a spectrum of content-based language instruction that is very clearly defined by Lyster and Ballinger and ranges from content-driven to language-driven. In content-based language courses that are more content-driven, students are most surely held accountable not only for the language but also for the content being taught. However, if the course is more language-driven, the student is held accountable for the language, but the content takes on a more secondary role. In both extremes, however, content and language are being integrated. “Content-driven programs promote language and literacy development through subject-matter learning and assess both content knowledge and language development in substantive ways. In contrast, language-driven programs focus on the development of target language proficiency but entail no high-stakes assessment of content knowledge” (Lyster & Ballinger, 2011, p. 280).
Why is it beneficial?
There are many reasons for employing content-based language instruction. Content-based language classrooms have shown increased student motivation, greater engagement, and a higher level of thinking, all of which lead to a deeper learning experience (Brown, 2007; Ewert, 2014; Hunt, 2011; Kirschner & Wexler, 2002). In other words, creating a content-based curriculum, or at least applying content-based activities into an existing language curriculum appears to have a very positive affect on students and their acquisition of new knowledge. Perhaps this is also because the students’ view is directed away from formal assessment and towards authentic use of the language. Brown (2007) explains “students are pointed beyond transient extrinsic factors, like grades and tests, to their own competence and autonomy as intelligent individuals capable of actually doing something with their new language” (p. 56). Moreover, after performing a case study of a content-based foreign language class, Hunt (2011) discovered that students “found this different approach refreshing” and “many pupils commented on the sense of achievement in completing all the work and managing to understand the lesson” (p. 372). In addition, Kirschner and Wexler (2002) make the claim that student motivation roots from students feeling that their needs are being met and that their time is being well spent. “Furthermore, if readings are selected from the students’ own discipline, this facilitates students’ perception of relevance to their needs and elicits cooperation, which is particularly pertinent in a setting like ours where EAP (English for Academic Purposes) courses are compulsory” (Kirschner & Wexler, 2002, p. 164). Ewert (2014) also claims that studying content allows students to make connections to their previous knowledge, which is known to be a useful strategy.
CBI/CBLT/CLIL courses are used as modes of instruction with widespread success regarding the quality of the learning, student motivation and student and teacher satisfaction (Ewert, 2014; Hunt, 2011; Kirschner & Wexler, 2002); Smala, 2013). Both Smala (2013) and Ewert (2014) agree that CLIL (Smala) and CBLT (Ewert) programs, although sometimes difficult to introduce into the current curriculum, are considered to be programs that enhance skills needed to succeed in the future either in a professional situation or an academic one. In addition, Kirschner & Wexler (2002) found that students were more engaged, fascinated, challenged and satisfied in a content-based ESP unit, while Hunt (2011) discovered that “pupils were more interested, more enthusiastic, more confident and showed greater enjoyment” in CLIL classes under question in England (p.375). These findings are very important because when a student is engaged, fascinated and satisfied, they will continue to study and enjoy their studies. They will be more motivated which will affect their learning in a positive way.
I can unquestionably confirm, with the experience that I have teaching different content-based activities within my classroom, that student motivation does seem to increase for the majority of students, and their focus and engagement in class is much improved. Moreover, I find that as the instructor my focus, motivation, and enthusiasm are also increased when teaching through content. Ewert (2014) supports my claim and states that incorporating new readings and new materials based on content and/or student interest not only increases student motivation but also teacher motivation. If an instructor's job is to teach students to the very best of our ability, then it would be beneficial to steer away from grammar-focus-driven classrooms and attempt to integrate more content-based activities whenever possible.
In addition, Song (2006) discovered after having conducted a study regarding long-term affects of content-based ESL classrooms in university, that students' performance is not only improved in the short-term as many other researchers have shown but also enhanced in the long-term. Students who study in content-based ESL courses performed better in their subsequent courses, and they also performed better on standardized English proficiency tests. Furthermore, Song (2006) showed that students who attended content-based ESL courses had a higher graduation rate, and tended to graduate earlier than those who attended non content-based ESL courses. These are all indicators that content-based language instruction for foreign languages, and more specifically for ESL/EFL, should not only be considered, but implemented.
Content-based language instruction is a method, which can be used when teaching any language. What I would like to focus on now is the use of content-based language instruction in English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL). ESL is the terminology given to English being taught to English language learners in a country where English is the first language of use of its citizens. EFL is the terminology given to English being taught to English language learners in countries where English is not the first language of use.
Copyright © December 2015 by Abby Burgoyne
Why is it beneficial?
There are many reasons for employing content-based language instruction. Content-based language classrooms have shown increased student motivation, greater engagement, and a higher level of thinking, all of which lead to a deeper learning experience (Brown, 2007; Ewert, 2014; Hunt, 2011; Kirschner & Wexler, 2002). In other words, creating a content-based curriculum, or at least applying content-based activities into an existing language curriculum appears to have a very positive affect on students and their acquisition of new knowledge. Perhaps this is also because the students’ view is directed away from formal assessment and towards authentic use of the language. Brown (2007) explains “students are pointed beyond transient extrinsic factors, like grades and tests, to their own competence and autonomy as intelligent individuals capable of actually doing something with their new language” (p. 56). Moreover, after performing a case study of a content-based foreign language class, Hunt (2011) discovered that students “found this different approach refreshing” and “many pupils commented on the sense of achievement in completing all the work and managing to understand the lesson” (p. 372). In addition, Kirschner and Wexler (2002) make the claim that student motivation roots from students feeling that their needs are being met and that their time is being well spent. “Furthermore, if readings are selected from the students’ own discipline, this facilitates students’ perception of relevance to their needs and elicits cooperation, which is particularly pertinent in a setting like ours where EAP (English for Academic Purposes) courses are compulsory” (Kirschner & Wexler, 2002, p. 164). Ewert (2014) also claims that studying content allows students to make connections to their previous knowledge, which is known to be a useful strategy.
CBI/CBLT/CLIL courses are used as modes of instruction with widespread success regarding the quality of the learning, student motivation and student and teacher satisfaction (Ewert, 2014; Hunt, 2011; Kirschner & Wexler, 2002); Smala, 2013). Both Smala (2013) and Ewert (2014) agree that CLIL (Smala) and CBLT (Ewert) programs, although sometimes difficult to introduce into the current curriculum, are considered to be programs that enhance skills needed to succeed in the future either in a professional situation or an academic one. In addition, Kirschner & Wexler (2002) found that students were more engaged, fascinated, challenged and satisfied in a content-based ESP unit, while Hunt (2011) discovered that “pupils were more interested, more enthusiastic, more confident and showed greater enjoyment” in CLIL classes under question in England (p.375). These findings are very important because when a student is engaged, fascinated and satisfied, they will continue to study and enjoy their studies. They will be more motivated which will affect their learning in a positive way.
I can unquestionably confirm, with the experience that I have teaching different content-based activities within my classroom, that student motivation does seem to increase for the majority of students, and their focus and engagement in class is much improved. Moreover, I find that as the instructor my focus, motivation, and enthusiasm are also increased when teaching through content. Ewert (2014) supports my claim and states that incorporating new readings and new materials based on content and/or student interest not only increases student motivation but also teacher motivation. If an instructor's job is to teach students to the very best of our ability, then it would be beneficial to steer away from grammar-focus-driven classrooms and attempt to integrate more content-based activities whenever possible.
In addition, Song (2006) discovered after having conducted a study regarding long-term affects of content-based ESL classrooms in university, that students' performance is not only improved in the short-term as many other researchers have shown but also enhanced in the long-term. Students who study in content-based ESL courses performed better in their subsequent courses, and they also performed better on standardized English proficiency tests. Furthermore, Song (2006) showed that students who attended content-based ESL courses had a higher graduation rate, and tended to graduate earlier than those who attended non content-based ESL courses. These are all indicators that content-based language instruction for foreign languages, and more specifically for ESL/EFL, should not only be considered, but implemented.
Content-based language instruction is a method, which can be used when teaching any language. What I would like to focus on now is the use of content-based language instruction in English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL). ESL is the terminology given to English being taught to English language learners in a country where English is the first language of use of its citizens. EFL is the terminology given to English being taught to English language learners in countries where English is not the first language of use.
Copyright © December 2015 by Abby Burgoyne