Content Based Instruction in Language Teaching in Relation With Clil Implementation and Outcome
Content Based Instruction in Language Teaching in Relation With Clil Implementation and Outcome
ABSTRACT
The present article has reviewed literature on Content-Based Instruction (CBI)
along with the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Language
Teaching based on the recent development in the field. This includes the
learning principle, factors responsible for the successful implementation of
CBI/CLIL, their prospect and outcome. The paper is written based on secondary data
from different articles providing exploratory account of contexts observed, paying
attention to the views and practices of participants, and review papers on
previous studies. The goal is to understand the aspects of CBI, its relation with
CLIL, success and shortcoming resulted from the implementation in language
teaching.
Keywords: Overview, Content-Based Instruction (CBI), Content and
Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), Immersion
INTRODUCTION
The mastery of the learners in Second Language (L2) becomes high
when the conditions applied during the First Language (L1) acquisition appear
in the second language (L2) acquisition: that is, when the emphasis is given
on meaning rather than on form; when the language input is above the competence of
the student; and when there is ample opportunity for students to get access to the
meaningful use of that language in a relatively stress-less atmosphere (Krashen
1985a; 1985b; Savignon 1983; Snow 1993; Wesche 1993).Thus, with the intention to
attain the mastery of the students in English as a Second or Foreign Language by not
solely focusing on the language itself, instea d emphasizing the content of the subject
matters, which students learn as parts of their academic journey, and which ultimately
result in the English proficiency of the students as the course materials are
developed in English, Content -based Instruction (CBI) emerged in the mid-
LITERATURE REVIEW
Existing literature has been found to be divided and indulged the
discussion among the terms CBI, CLIL and Immersion and its implication on
language teaching (Cenoz & Zarobe, 2015; Chamot & O‟Malley, 1994; Ruiz
de Zarobe, 2008). Therefore, it has become obligatory to incorporate a conceptual
analysis to distinct these terms or draw any relation that is predominantly established
in the available literature. CBI/CLIL/Immersion needs to be analyzed contextually
before the adaptation in a different context or program since, potential impact of
integration can lead various pedagogical impediment, which found to be a barrier in
the implication among the literature and consequently, the learning of language
(Tedick & Wesely 2015). Therefore, based on a categorical analysis of literature on
the factors that influence CBI/CLIL/immersion, according to researchers e.g.
Cenoz & Zarobe (2014); Gallagher and Leahy (2014); March, Hau, & Kong (2000);
Bulter, (2005); Morris & Tarone (2003), is a predetermining factors of integration
and impact the language teaching. However, in accordance to the problem stated, the
specific aims of the article are following:
1. To investigate, whether CBI, CLIL and Immersion are distinct or identical,
or not.
2. To explore what is the suitable context to implement CBI, in relation to the
principle of CBI.
3. To apprehend the potential impact of CBI in the language teaching
and learning, in association to implication barriers of CBI.
METHODOLOGY
In order to answer the research questions of the present study, an extensi ve
amount of literature has been reviewed and explained. To the review of the related
literature, a systematic search has been adopted by using the topic and keywords
Flourishing Creativity & Literacy e.g. CBI, CLIL, Immersion, Bilingual
education etc. Searches for peer reviewed articles were conducted in ERIC
(EBSCO or CSA), Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (CSA)
and Google Scholar of years year between (2000- 2016) to find out recent and
as many numbers of literature as possible related to the topic and keywords.
Collected data were analysed under each heading and sub headings. All data
that are collected from different secondary sources are acknowledged accordingly in
text and in the reference list.
What is CBI?
CBI is defined as “the concurrent teaching of academic subject matter and
second language skills” . It provides authentic, meaningful academic contexts aiming
at developing both the language skill and subject-knowledge of the learners. In
addition to CBI, some authors perceive that it also aims at improving the
repertoire necessitated in the field of learning (Chamot & O‟Malley, 1994). Butler
(2005) elucidated that CBI facilitates learners in the process of negotiating meaning
and practicing the productive language skills, which wil l help them to focus on
forms as well as meaning. This is marked as “comprehensible input”, which is
recommended as being an indispensable issue of CBI (Swain, 1985, 1993).
CBI facilitates Cognitively -demanding tasks that, according to Cummins (1992),
aid learners in attaining Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP), which
leads the learners to the overall academic success. The incorporated cognitive skills
and learning strategies into CBI are also corroborated by a number of cognitive and
educational theories in principle (Butler, 2005). He added that teachers use a wide
range of instructional strategies that entail visual aids, conceptual maps, and
analogies by which they purportedly generate meaningful and organized information.
As a result, students can successfully enrich their knowledge by adding the new one
to the prior one CBI, by providing learners with cognitively challenging content
materials and tasks, privileges the students in a way that they can develop
self-esteem and critical thought process. In a word, CBI, intrinsically like Content
and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), with corroboration from a number of
theories belongs to different academic aspects, with a view to boosting integrated
development of learners required to achieve language proficiency and content
knowledge.
CBI and Immersion
Highly influenced by Immersion Education is the content-based instruction,
and Immersion Education implies the type of foreign language instruction, which
theorizes that the medium of regular school curriculum is the foreign language
(Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Cenoz & Zarobe (2015) define immersion as type of
CBI, and it is one of the familiar L2 -medium programs. According to them it was
introduced in 1960, Canada intending to assist the bulk of the language learners. So
far, two types of immersion programs are designed - One-way immersion and two-
way immersion . as mentioned by Tedick & Wesely , is designed for L1 speakers,
Zarobe, 2008, p. 61 footnote). In fine, it the bottom line can be drawn in this way that
CBI and CLIL, in respect to their setting, aim and objective, contents, and
implementation, are same.
CBI Contexts
Typically CBI is implemented in English programs, bilingual programs,
foreign language programs, heritage language programs, and other programs across
grade levels . Some programs focus on learners‟ language development
(language-driven approaches) while others emphasizes largely on aiding students to
acquire the content knowledge by providing different types of cognitive and
linguistic corroboration (content-driven approaches) categorizes the pedagogic
situations where CBI/CLIL is practiced as the following:
A. Where the local languages are not used institutionally. This is due to the
minor users and/or the lower status of the language. Speakers of Quechua in Peru or
Nahuatl in Mexico are the worth example belong to this setting.
B. Situation where spoken languages are not part of the curriculum of
the host country. To mobilize socially people use these languages, and in these
cases home languages are dissimilar to that of the host one. In particular,
children comprised to this situation are Turkish speaking people living in Netherlands
or Germany.
C. This is typically English as a home language situation. Intending to get
excellence in the language skill some subjects are taught through the local minority
languages. Example lies on the English–Spanish dual immersion programs in the
USA.
D. This situation includes contexts where English is learned as a Foreign
Language such as Austria or Sweden and in bilingual regions in areas where English
is taught as a third language. Usually, languages of majority or minority people are
used at school. That to attain a good job requires the excellence in the English
language backs the institutions to teach some subjects in English. Gallagher and
Leahy (2014) refer situation B and C as „immersion by default‟ and „immersion by
design‟ respectively. Situation in which schoolchildren have no access to their L1 at
school and are taught in other languages such as English in the case of immigrant
students in the UK and Ireland, German in Germany or English in the USA
is marked as „immersion by default‟. „Immersion by design‟, they indicate,
implies that the school as a place to improve bi/multilingualism and that there is
assistance for learners intending to language learning. This is applicable for situation
D. Situation A, as Paran 2013 expounds, devised due to lack of choice, which
is a common phenomenon in the educational systems in Africa, Asia and South
CONCLUSION
The recent research in the field of Second Language Education has been
flourishing, so does the CBI/CLIL and it implication in language teaching.
However, the development also leaving gap in the research and practice of the field
REFERENCES
1. Aguilar, M., & Rodríguez, R. (2012). Lecturer and student perceptions on
CLIL at a Spanish university. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism , 15(2), 183-197.
2. Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications . WH
Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.Armbruster, B. B. (1986). Schema theory
and the design of content-area textbooks. Educational Psychologist, 21(4),
253-267.
3. Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (Vol. 79).
Multilingual matters.
4. Brinton, D. M., M. A. Snow, & M. B. Wesche. (1989). Content-based Second
Language Instruction. New York: Newbury House.
5. Brinton, D., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. (1989). Content-based second language
instruction.Bruton, A. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating
some of the research. System, 39(4), 523-532.
6. Catalán, R. M. J., & De Zarobe, Y. R. (2009). The receptive vocabulary of
EFL learners in two instructional contexts: CLIL versus non-CLIL
instruction.Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in
Europe, 81-92.
7. Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. J. (2012). Balancing content and language in
instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal,
96(2), 251-269.
8. Coleman, J. A. (2006). English-medium teaching in European higher education.
Language teaching, 39(01), 1-14.
9. Cammarata, L. (2010). Foreign language teachers‟ struggle to learn content-based
instruction. L2 Journal, 2(1).
10. Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing
the cognitive academic language learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company. Caldas, S. J., & Boudreaux, N. (1999). Poverty, Race, and
11. Foreign Language Immersion: Predictors of Math and English Language Arts
Performance. Learning Languages.
12. Cenoz, J. (2013). Discussion: Towards an educational perspective in CLIL
language policy and pedagogical practice. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 389-394.
13. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2011). Focus on multilingualism: A study of
trilingual writing. The Modern Language
Journal, 95(3), 356-369.