Julieta Bares.

Aspectos prácticos de la enseñanza del Inglés I.

Compare and contrast essay: Communicative Language Teaching and Content-Based

Instruction

Communicative language teaching (CLT) is an approach to language teaching that emphasizes

interaction as both the means and the ultimate goal of study, while Content-Based Instruction (CBI) is
an approach in which teaching is organized around the content or information that students will
acquire, rather than around a linguistic or other type of syllabus. At first appearance they could seem
pretty different, but when it comes to theory of language and learning, types of learning and teaching
activities, teacher roles and learner roles, they show many similarities. However, referring to
objectives, the syllabus and the role of instructional materials we find dissimilar descriptions.

First of all, the theory of language in the communicative approach starts from a theory of language as
communication. The goal of language teaching is to develop what Hymes (1972) referred to as
"communicative competence." Hymes's theory of communicative competence was a definition of
what a speaker needs to know in order to be communicatively com­petent in a speech community.
Likewise, the principles of Content-Based Instruction are heavily rooted on the principles of
communicative language teaching since they involve an active participation of students in the
exchange of content. Language is reached by constructing meaning and information communicatively.

Secondly, CLT’s theory of learning encourages an emphasis on practice as a way of de­veloping

communicative skills. The following elements can be discerned in CLT practices: the communication
principle (activities that involve real communication promote learning), task principle (activities in
which language is used for carrying out meaningful tasks promote learning (Johnson 1982)) , and
meaningfulness principle (language that is meaningful to the learner supports the learn­ing process). In
the same way, CBI makes an assumption that learners learn best when they are given language in a
meaningful , contextualized form, but with the primary focus on acquiring information.

Thirdly, the range of learning and teaching exercises and activities compatible with a commu­nicative
approach is unlimited, provided that such exercises enable learn­ers to attain the communicative
objectives of the curriculum, engage learners in communication, and require the use of such
communicative processes as information sharing, negotiation of meaning, and interaction. Classroom
activities are often designed to focus on completing tasks that are mediated through language or
involve negotiation of in­formation and information sharing. Learning activities are consequently
selected according to how well they engage the learner in meaningful and authentic language use
(rather than merely mechanical practice of language patterns). Similarly, CBI types of learning and
 Julieta Bares.
Aspectos prácticos de la enseñanza del Inglés I.

teaching involve real meaningful communication. For this, Stroller (1997) proposed classifying the
activities into six categories: language skills improvement, vocabulary building, discourse
organization, communicative interaction, study skills and synthesis of content materials and grammar.

Furthermore, several roles are assumed for teachers in Communicative Language Teaching, but there
are two main roles: the first role is to facilitate the communica­tion process between all participants in
the classroom, and between these participants and the various activities and texts. The second role is
to act as an independent participant within the learning-teaching group. In the same way in CBI,
language teachers have such responsibility as to keep context and comprehensibility foremost in their
instruction and to create learner-centered classrooms (Stryker & Leaver, 1993). Adding to this, in CBI
language teachers must be knowledgeable in content areas and be able to elicit knowledge from
students.

Additionally, the role of the learner in CLT functions as negotiator between the self, the learning
process and the object of learning - emerges from and interacts with the role of joint negotiator within
the group and within the classroom procedures and activities which the group undertakes. The
implication for the learner is that he should contribute as much as he gains, and thereby learn in an
independent way (Breen and Candlin, 1980). As well, students are hypothesized to become
autonomous and independent in CBI, so that they are conscious of their own learning process and can
take charge of their learning. Moreover, students are expected to support each other in collaborative
modes of learning. Students need to make a commitment to this new approach to language learning
(Stryker & Leaver, 1993).

Despite this, when it comes to the objectives Piepho (1981) discusses the following levels of
objectives in a communicative approach: an integrative and content level, a linguistic and instrumental
level, an affective level of interpersonal relationships and conduct, a level of individual learning
needs, and a general educational level of extra-linguistic goals. However, in CBI, the language is
second to learning the content. The objectives relate to the content, not to the language. Rather than
learning a language out of context, it is learned within the context of a specific academic subject.

Regarding the syllabus, discussions of its nature have been central in CLT. One of the first syllabus
models to be proposed was described as a notional syllabus and the categories of communicative
function that learners need to express. On the one hand, the Council of Europe expanded and
developed this into a syllabus that included descriptions of the objectives of foreign language courses
 Julieta Bares.
Aspectos prácticos de la enseñanza del Inglés I.
for European adults, the situations in which they might typically need to use a foreign language, the
topics they might need to talk about, the functions they needed language for, the notions made use of
in communication, as well as the vocabulary and grammar needed. On the other hand, the syllabus in
most CBI courses are derived from content areas, and vary widely in detail and format. In a word,
CBI is a method of teaching language and content in tandem. The syllabus comes from the content.

Concerning the role of instructional materials, in CLT, they have the primary role of promoting
communicative language use. There are three kinds of materials currently used in CLT: text-based
(textbooks designed to direct and support CLT.), task-based (games, role plays, simulations, and
task-based communication activities), and realia (“authentic," "from-life" materials). Otherwise, CBI
emphasizes the use of authentic materials but with two implications, one is that the materials are
similar to those used in native-language instruction; the other relates to the use of media materials
“that were not originally produced for language teaching purposes” (Brinton et al., 1989). Some realia
such as tourist guidebooks, technical journals, railway timetables, newspaper ads, or TV broadcasts
are also recommended by many CBI practitioners (Richards & Rodgers, 2001).

To conclude, we could say that CLT and CBI are pretty similar in terms of theory and roles, but a little
bit different in terms of syllabus, objectives and instructional materials. Anyways, as CBI derives
from CLT they share communicative principles. As future teachers, it is important to be aware of the
different methods and approaches and be able to choose things from different methods knowing the
differences well.