Philippine Normal University

College of Languages, Linguistics and Literature

Department of English

Written Report on

Content-Based Syllabus

In partial fulfilment of the requirements in

S-ENG 28

Preparation and Evaluation of Instructional Materials

Submitted by:

Mañibo, Marianne M.

III-13 BSE-English

January 26, 2011

I. Background Information
 The term content refers to the substance or subject matter that we learn or

communicate through language rather than the language used to convey it.

In concept, content-based language teaching is simple: It is the teaching of

content or information in the language being learned with little or no direct explicit

effort to teach language itself separately from the content being taught.

Recent developments in content-based language teaching are closely related to the

broader issue of attempts to provide instruction to LEP children in public schools in the

United States and Canada. One solution to the problem of limited school language

proficiency has been some sort of controlled immersion in the language of the school or

society. “Immersion” essentially has meant that students are given content in instruction

in a language they may not control well or at all; that is, they simply go to school in that

language. When undertaken responsibly and informedly, immersion can maximize the

students’ comprehension of both the target language and the content material.

The potential for the success of immersion was established by controlled research

carried out in Canada (Lambert& Tucker, 1972). In this research program, students were

placed in school subject classes, starting at the kindergarten level, that were taught in

languages other than their first. The results of the research demonstrated that such

students had learned both the content being taught and the language and the language in

which it was taught, and that cognitive development was not slowed by such an

experience.

This type of evidence, and the need to educate large numbers of non- English-

speaking children in the United States and Canada, gave support to bilingual education
programs in both countries as a solution to the problem of educating children who do not

speak the language of the educational system. The goals of bilingual education programs

have been to keep non-dominant language speakers in school, to ensure that their

cognitive development continues at an acceptable rate, and to give them ability in the

community language that they did not have proficiency in, leading, ideally, to

bilingualism.

The problems that have arisen with this concept have led to its revision, but not

abandonment. One problem has to do with the concept of immersion itself. When

immersion is interpreted as the placing of students with limited proficiency in the target

language in a class composed primarily of native speakers without making any provision

of content and their acquisition of the target language, little content learning or language

acquisition takes place. But when teaching techniques are adjusted so that students

comprehend the content material as it is presented in the new language, both content and

language acquisition do occur. Immersion without adjustment or assistance has been

labelled “submersion” ( Krashen, 1985, p.81)

The second problem with the understanding of immersion education has to do

with the students’ age. It is widely believed that very young children can acquire new

language naturally but that older children and adults lose this capacity and need large

amounts of formal training. While there is some truth to this, recent research in language

acquisition has established that adults can acquire languages in the same manner that

children do, and that, in addition, they can take better advantage of formal instruction

than children can. Studies on what is called “late immersion”, or immersion that starts

after the age of 11 or 12, have demonstrated that older students can benefit from content-
based instruction (California State Board of Education, 1984; Genesee, Polich & Stanley,

1977). Older students may benefit more from immersion or content-based instruction if

the immersion is preceded by a period of formal instruction in the language (Lapkin &

Cummins, 1984; Swain, 1984).

The learning theory associated with content-based instruction is an acquisition

theory that accounts for learning without explicit instruction ( krashen, 1982; Krashen &

Terel, 1983). To achieve the goal of language skills improvement, Krashen states that the

focus of the teaching is on the authentic and meaningful input, not on the grammatical

form.

Content-based learning seems to be most effective with younger children, but it

has also been validated for older children and adults (California State Board of

Education, 1984). Some evidence (Mason, 1971) suggests that even adults in higher

education programs may benefit from large doses of content instruction. Some intensive

academic curricula attempt to include a component of content-based instruction by

having students take content courses with language instructional support. Evidence for

the success of such programs is largely anecdotal, and practical and administrative

problems frequently prevent them from being attempted.

In the United States, the bilingual immersion approach is being superseded in

some places by a more refined approach known as the “sheltered classroom.” This is an

exclusively content-focused classroom for students whose proficiency in the school

language is limited. Instead of direct language instruction, the students in a sheltered

classroom are given content instruction while special attention is paid to their language
learning needs: greater comprehensibility of the teacher’s explanations, more time to

complete assignments, rich language experiences throughout the curriculum, and so on.

Such controlled immersion is often, but not always, supplemented by explicit formal

instruction in the target language.

The theory of language assumed by content-based instruction embraces the full

range of communicative competence, including a structural component (grammatical

competence), sociolinguistic and discourse competence (especially in school settings and

in school discourse), and strategic competence, again as it relates to academic activities.

It is a use-based theory of language that sees language as arising from the settings in

which it is used. Content-based learning does not clearly distinguish form and function in

teaching language but makes the new language available in the contexts of its functions

and meanings.

Content-based instruction has been investigated primarily in the context of

schools, using school subject content as the vehicle for language learning and the

primarily instructional objective. It would be equally applicable outside of school

settings, especially for children, and for adults if an adequate support and monitoring

mechanism is provided. Some vocational language instruction may indeed benefit from a

content-based approach. Content-based instruction has a long history as an informal

method, as many language learners expose themselves to immersion experiences in the

process of using the language for specific purposes, improving their competence along

the way.

II. Characteristics/Features
 In most CBI courses, the syllabus is derived from the content area, and these

obviously vary widely in detail and format. It is typically only in CBI following the

theme-based model in which content and instructional sequence is chosen according to

language learning goals. The theme-based model uses the syllabus type referred to as a

topical syllabus, the organization of which is built around specific topics and subtopics,

as the name impliesThe primary purpose of instruction is to teach some content or

information using the language that the students are also learning. The students are

simultaneously language students and students of whatever content is being taught. The

subject matter is primary, and language learning occurs incidentally to the content

learning. The content teaching is not organized around the language teaching, but vice-

versa. Content-based language teaching is concerned with information, while task-based

language teaching is concerned with communicative and cognitive processes. An

example of content-based language teaching is a science class taught in the language the

students need or want to learn, possibly with linguistic adjustment to make the science

more comprehensible.

Content-based syllabus is most applicable in primary and secondary school

settings with significant numbers of students speaking a language other than the one

primarily used in the educational system. It can be used in a foreign language setting if,

for example, a school has determined that its students should have academic competency

in a second language. Content instruction is also applicable to LEP students whom U.S.

school systems are encountering in increasing numbers. Rather than pulling the students

out of content classes for ESL instruction, or delaying content instruction until some

sufficient level of English ability is reached administrators can group such students
together in a sheltered, content-based classroom and provide them with the instruction

necessary to develop both types of ability simultaneously ( Cummins, 1981; Krashen,

1985).

Content based instruction can probably be of benefit to adults in other language

and content learning settings also. Immigrants, refugees, and guest workers can be taught

life skills and social information in the language of the society they will be living in,

getting content and language at the same time. Vocational language instruction can

follow the same model, with job skills and the accompanying language abilities being

taught at the same time.

Content-based instruction may not be appropriate where a second or foreign

language is regarded as a school subject itself, or where knowledge of some narrowly

specified language instructional content is mandated or expected. One exception occurs

when extensive reading in the new language is assigned, possibly as an out-of-class

activity.

III. Advantages/ Disadvantages

A. Advantages

 It allows school students to learn subject matter and language

simultaneously, avoiding the problem of having to learn the subject matter

and language simultaneously.

 Language is learned in the context of its use, eliminating the problem of

transfer from instruction to use.

what is provided.

 The motivational aspect of content-based instruction.

B. Disadvantages

 CBI potentially can lead to premature fossilization or overreliance on

compensatory communication strategies if learners are not carefully

monitored and given appropriate feedback on their language proficiency

 CBI is often problematic with beginning or low level adult students,

although more effective ways to use it with adults will probably be

developed.

IV. Sample Syllabus

Any content-based syllabus is by definition identical to the syllabus of

a content course at any level in science, social studies, or any other school subject.

Extensive reading of literature or other content material in a target language can

also be seen as a type of content-based learning. A content syllabus might be

supplemented with traditional, form-focused, language intensive work on for

example, vocabulary development, spelling, specific and intensive writing

activities and so on.

• Unit 2 Types of learning

• Unit 3 Advertising and psychological techniques

• Unit 4 Counselling

• Unit 5 Psychological Illnesses

• Unit 6 Project work

Each unit took from two to three weeks to complete. The students had two

classes per week and each class lasted for two and a half hours. The syllabus that

we used is clearly different from a conventional Introduction to Psychology class.

Our aim was to allow the students to explore various aspects of psychology rather

than attempting to give them a thorough grounding in a subject which, we

believed, would have been too difficult for them to understand at this stage. In

fact one of the strengths of theme based CBI is its flexibility; teachers can create

units with specific learner needs in mind. For example, Unit 3 began with some

textbook readings followed by questions and written work. After this the students

were given some advertisements to analyze and also brought in their own

examples for use in group discussions. Finally, for a small group project, they

designed their own advertisements and then presented their work to the other class

members with a rationale for why they had chosen their product and who the
 target customers would be. Among the products they designed were a genetically

engineered cake tree and a time vision camera.

V. Conclusion

Content-Based Instruction can help learners develop their language skills for

academic use as well as provide them with access to new concepts through

meaningful. CBI is an ideal approach to learning the target language, but for a

content-based pedagogy, there are special concerns such as assessment and teacher

education CBI fits in well with broader principles of language teaching and learning,

and it can be applied in various situations Of course, as with any teaching approach,

alternative lesson plans may be required to apply this approach in a real ESL or EFL

classroom because there is not a perfect language teaching approach to be applied in

all situations. Content-based instruction does not guarantee successful

communicative ability, especially productive ability (Mohan, 1979), unless extensive

productive activities are included as part of the overall instructional experience.

References:
Krahnke, K. (1987). Approaches to Syllabus Design for Foreign Language Teaching.

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Reilly, T. (1988-05-00). Approaches to Foreign Language Syllabus Design. ERIC Digest.

Retrieved from:  http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-928/design.htm

Content-Based Instruction in EFL Contexts. Retrieved from:

http://www.admashmc.com/cbi.pdf