CENTRAL ASIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL FOR INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES (CARJIS)

Google Scholar Universal Impact Factor: 7,1 ISSN:2181-2454

www.carjis.org DOI: 10.24412/2181-2454-2022-1-392-399 VOLUME 2 | ISSUE 1 | 2022

CONTENT-BASED INSTRUCTION IN LANGUAGE TEACHING IN

RELATION WITH CLIL: IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME

Laylo Xammadullayevna Alimjanova

Master student of foreign languages and literature (English)
Chirchik State Pedadogical Institute

Umida Kamalovna Nosirova

Scientific supervisor

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-

Tashkent, Uzbekistan 392 E-mail: [email protected]

 CENTRAL ASIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL FOR INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES (CARJIS)
Google Scholar Universal Impact Factor: 7,1 ISSN:2181-2454
www.carjis.org DOI: 10.24412/2181-2454-2022-1-392-399 VOLUME 2 | ISSUE 1 | 2022

1970s recommended by British governmental commission, which suggested two

skillsreading (receptive) and writing (productive)- must be given emphasis during
the development of curriculum. It was the result of the „Language across the
curriculum‟ movement during that time (Larsen & Freeman, 2000).

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.

Tashkent, Uzbekistan 393 E-mail: [email protected]

 CENTRAL ASIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL FOR INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES (CARJIS)
Google Scholar Universal Impact Factor: 7,1 ISSN:2181-2454
www.carjis.org DOI: 10.24412/2181-2454-2022-1-392-399 VOLUME 2 | ISSUE 1 | 2022

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,

Tashkent, Uzbekistan 394 E-mail: [email protected]

 CENTRAL ASIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL FOR INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES (CARJIS)
Google Scholar Universal Impact Factor: 7,1 ISSN:2181-2454
www.carjis.org DOI: 10.24412/2181-2454-2022-1-392-399 VOLUME 2 | ISSUE 1 | 2022

and T WI is developed for learners who have heterogeneity in terms of language in

the classroom.
2.2 CBI and CLIL, are they Different or Same?
To be the member of the global family, in the first hand, it is important to adapt
the International Language (English) in the curriculum. For last 20-25 years, it
evident that, worldwide universities have been experiencing the growing
necessity to be internationalized, which is resulted from getting access to English
language by using it as the medium of instruction, and this scenery prone to take
place mostly in non-English speaking countries (Coleman, 2006; Ljosland, 2005).
Some approaches are associated with emphasizing on both content and
language in an integrated way, and usually get carried out by subject specialists or
team teaching. CLIL is one of them. Content and Language Integrated Learning
(CLIL), which has flourished in Europe since the 1990s as Dalton -Puffer
(2007) reported, has been dubbed as “an educational approach where [content]
subjects are taught through the medium of a foreign language” to the learners
belong to all educational levels . The action of CBI is often regarded as
Content and Language integrated learning because learners‟ primary focus is
the content and secondary target is the mastery of the language. Occasionally, some
controversies arise regarding whether CBI and CLIL are same or different. CBI is
used mostly in North American setting and practice of CLIL is found in Europe
.Ground studies on CBI/CLIL programs all over the world, discussed by
Cenoz (2014), look at the similarities and differences between the programs
generated from their definition. She criticizes the idea of dubbing CLIL as a unique
approach. Cenoz leads the discussion focusing on an example in a school in the
Basque Country where the languages of instruction are Basque, Spanish and
English, and where the learners are linguistically heterogeneous. No monolithic
variation regarding the properties like languages of instruction, the language,
societal and educational aims and the typical type of children taking part in these
program exists between CBI/CLI L, according to her analyses; therefore, it is to be
claimed that if variation occurs circumstantially, it is accidental. Learning the subject
matters through medium
of second or additional language is considered as Content-based Instruction (CBI) or
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) opine, CLIL is an educational
approach where teaching and learning of both content and language are accomplished
using an additional language, and it explicates t hat in the classroom focus is not only
on the content, and not only on the language. Accumulation of both is prevailed in the
classroom. In addition, some authors identified both terms synonymous (Ruiz de

Tashkent, Uzbekistan 395 E-mail: [email protected]

 CENTRAL ASIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL FOR INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES (CARJIS)
Google Scholar Universal Impact Factor: 7,1 ISSN:2181-2454
www.carjis.org DOI: 10.24412/2181-2454-2022-1-392-399 VOLUME 2 | ISSUE 1 | 2022

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

Tashkent, Uzbekistan 396 E-mail: [email protected]

 CENTRAL ASIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL FOR INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES (CARJIS)
Google Scholar Universal Impact Factor: 7,1 ISSN:2181-2454
www.carjis.org DOI: 10.24412/2181-2454-2022-1-392-399 VOLUME 2 | ISSUE 1 | 2022

America. It is worth mentioning that in such contexts native language is different

from the academic language.
Shortcoming of CBI/CLIL
Although a bunch of advantages to foster learning lies on CBI/CLIL,
neither of them are not free from some shortcomings. The goal of such
programs is to develop mastery of the content, which is correlated to attaining
the mastery of the language. But when it comes to the reality, it shows the reverse
scenario. It is found in practice that apart from triggering on certain terminology
pedagogically, CLIL may have ambiguity in targeting at language learning goals
(Dalton-Puffer, 2011). CLIL does not have overt emphasis on teaching grammar.
This happens because of several identical factors. For the first, as Fortaner (2010)
mentioned, teachers in CLIL suffer from short of potential training, which is a
prerequisite of the successful implementation of any educational program. Teachers
hold the perception that by attending classes conducted in English, learners will have
the command in foreign language naturally .Secondly, complicacy is associated with
the selecting procedures of course content. Lorenzo, Casal, & Moore (2010)
identified, lack of doable materials is responsible in this respect. Finally,
according to Huttner (2013), the deployed activities of the teachers and students are
creating hindrance, and stakeholders such as researchers and policymakers are not
made cognizant about these. In addition to these, the conventional thought of both
teachers and students plays an unconstructive role for not having a pragmatic
teaching and learning of grammar. Coyle (2013) stated that students‟ goal is to
get the exposure of the language regardless of accuracy. Carrying the same
perception in their mind, teachers are less likely to discuss grammatical rules in the
classroom. So grammar, core of a language, is not addressed properly in the
CLIL/CBI classrooms. It is also elicited that in CLIL classrooms speaking and
writing are widely emphasized; perhaps, this is one of the reasons for students not
being engaged to learning grammar. The downside of CLIL, as Dalton-Puffer et al.
(2009, p. 24) figured out, is that students criticizes the notion of focusing
solely on speaking and reading in CLIL classes with writing being perceived as less
important, despite the magnitude they feel associated with being skilled in writing to
serve professional purposes such as writing reports, memorandum etc.

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

Tashkent, Uzbekistan 397 E-mail: [email protected]

 CENTRAL ASIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL FOR INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES (CARJIS)
Google Scholar Universal Impact Factor: 7,1 ISSN:2181-2454
www.carjis.org DOI: 10.24412/2181-2454-2022-1-392-399 VOLUME 2 | ISSUE 1 | 2022

(Rahman & Pandian, 2016). According to Rahman and Pandian (2016)

sufficient support and assistance e.g. professional development, opportunity for
classroom or action research, more research oriented in-service training of the
teachers‟ should be given to the teachers from the educational institution and
the government. Teachers‟ should have their liberty to take decision for the sake of
better teaching and learning, allowing them to take part in the selection of the
contents, and provide payments within stipulated time period, all kinds of
support should be given to the instructors. These will help to develop the morale
of the teachers. Butler (2005) illuminated that, not only do the content teachers
require a good command in English but also need a greater degree of knowledge
about language improvement and usage. He added that they have to be cognizant
about learners‟ proficiency level and language learning strategies. Similarly, he
mentioned, language teachers intending to use CBI must be ornamented with the
content knowledge to facilitate learning. However, such qualified teachers are absent
in many East Asian EFL contexts. Teacher education program can solve this
problem. CBI/CLIL oriented programs should be monitored by the related
authorities. Multidimensional problems may arise while implementing this. The
execution of skilled monitoring can facilitate the useful learning in CBI programs.
Nevertheless, it helps to identify the problems, which by taking initiatives can easily
be solved. Problem may arise from not understanding the instruction given by the
teacher clearly or students‟ of interest to learn or teachers‟ lack of knowledge
regarding the content or irrelevance between the goal and practiced content. These
can lead to the inhibition of motivation and aptitude of the learners. The most
controversy results from the accumulation of content and language. Butler (2005)
elucidated that although it is difficult to distinguish language and content, some
evaluations should be done to understand whether lack of language ability or lack of
prior knowledge is responsible for students‟ low performance. In addition, CBI
classes are conducted in the target language. But students in EFL setting lack
necessitated command to deal with content, and they are likely to use L1 to
understand the content. It is a matter of concern as the primary focus of the
curriculum here is to attain mastery over foreign language. The monitoring
should also focus on whether teachers fail to encourage or motivate students to learn
things using foreign language along with language itself or teachers themselves lack
the required command in English. The materials and tasks prepared for classroom
practice should also be scrutinized to check whether they suit the students‟ interest. If
any problem from any phase is sorted out, the authority can initiate to solve the
problem. Not only this, such monitoring can help thrive the programs in future.

Tashkent, Uzbekistan 398 E-mail: [email protected]

 CENTRAL ASIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL FOR INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES (CARJIS)
Google Scholar Universal Impact Factor: 7,1 ISSN:2181-2454
www.carjis.org DOI: 10.24412/2181-2454-2022-1-392-399 VOLUME 2 | ISSUE 1 | 2022

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.

Tashkent, Uzbekistan 399 E-mail: [email protected]