Summary of article # 3 - The Whats, Whys, Hows and Whos of Content-Based Instruction in Second/Foreign Language Education.

The Whats, Whys, Hows and Whos of Content-Based Instruction in Second/Foreign Language Education. 
By: Maria Duenas
   
    This article explores the nature  of the content based methodological frame work, the theoretical foundations that support it and the different models for application in compliances with parameters.  It also provides a number of references selected from the existing literature, contributed by researchers in the field of Content Bases Instuction.

     According to communicative principles, attaining communicative competence that would allow learners to function well in the new language was set as the main objective of instruction. Using the language to communicate was seen as the best way to learn it. The key purpose of the communicative proposal has been “the elaboration and implementation of programs and methodologies that promote the development of functional language ability through learners’ participation in communicative events” (Savignon, 2002: 10).These CLT spin-off approaches include The Natural Approach,Cooperative Language Learning, Content-Based Teaching, and Task-Based Teaching.

     The article discuss the "Whats" of Content-based by providing its description and background.  The best conditions for learning a second/foreign language takes place when both the target language and some meaningful content are included in the classroom. The language is both an immediate object of study in itself, and a medium for learning a particular subject matter. In this case, teachers use content topics rather than grammar rule. This practice of combining language and content for both purposeful linguistic and subject-matter learning originated in Canada around 1965.

      In addition, the author provides the "whys" or theoretical underpinnings of CBI. According to Grabe and Stoller, the research which supports CBI come from many studies in ESL.  Researchers like Krashen and Swain support Content Base Instruction with their work. Krashen (1982, 1984, 1895) claims that second language acquisition occurs when the learner receives comprehensible input, not when he or she is forced to memorize vocabulary or manipulate language by means of batteries of grammar exercises. Those methodological practices which provide students with more comprehensible input are bound to be more successful in attaining the desired goals. Swain (l985,l993) states that, in order for learners to develop communicative competence, they must also have the opportunity of using the new language productively, both orally and in writing.

     Other classroom training research also supports the effectiveness of CBI. Along with these are: research on cooperative learning, research on learning strategy instruction, and research in extensive reading. Cooperative learning requires that small groups of students work together to learn information and perform different tasks, thus promoting peer group support and peer instruction. Cooperative learning leads to greater student participation, increases motivation for learning, develops more positive student attitudes toward school, and promotes greater self-esteem. Cooperative learning also provides students with self confidence and cognitive demands.

     A comprehensive review of the apparent benefits of CBI is found in Grabe and Stoller (1997); the conclusions resulting from these findings suggest seven rationales for CBI that can be recapitulated as follows:

1. In content-based classrooms, students are exposed to a considerable amount of language while learning content. 

2. CBI supports contextualized learning; students are taught useful language that is embedded within relevant discourse contexts rather than as isolated language fragments. 

3. The use of coherently developed content sources allows students to call on their own prior knowledge to learn additional language and content material.

4.  In content-based classrooms, students are exposed to complex information and are involved in demanding activities which can lead to intrinsic motivation.

5. CBI  lends itself well to strategy instruction and practice, as theme units naturally require and recycle important strategies across varying content and learning tasks.

6. CBI allows greater flexibility and adaptability to be built into the curriculum and activity sequences.

7. CBI lends itself to student-centered classroom activities.

  The "Hows" of CBI are described in four models as follows: 

l. Immersion education refers to the teaching, learning concepts and ideas in a language that is not one’s own is hardly a new phenomenon.

2. Sheltered courses is taught in a second language by a content specialist to a group of learners who have been segregated or ‘sheltered’ from native speakers” The term ‘sheltered’ derives from the intended separation of second language students from native speakers of the target language for content instruction purposes.  

3. Adjunct courses constitutes a more sophisticated pattern for the integration of language and content, because adjunct classes are not implemented on their own but aim at assisting an existing regular subject-matter class.

4. Theme-based model.  Theme-based courses probably constitute the most popular and widely used prototype of CBI at all levels of instructions and in both second and foreign language settings. In the theme-based model, courses are autonomous.

    The last part of the article offers numerous authors whose work and experience have contributed in CBI.   In conclusion, Content-Based Instruction has been around since the early l900s providing a flexible teaching framework with optimal scope for the accommodation of the most diverse content areas. The end results of a CBI course strongly offers the most stimulating challenge for language teachers. Most experienced authors agree that experimenting CBI is certainly worthwhile.