“I can’t teach that!...Alright, I guess I can.

”: A
Love-Hate Relationship with Content Based
Instruction
Dr. Barry Lee Reynolds
National Yang-Ming University
Education Center for Humanities & Social Sciences
Outline
 Introduction

 Theoretical foundations

 Content based instruction history

 Selected Questions & Possible Answers

Defining Content Based
Instruction
 Content Based Instruction (CBI) allows for simultaneous
instruction in both content and language skills.
 In other words, students are exposed to language instruction
through content instruction (priority is placed on the content).
 Language learning is contextualized.

 Language learning is intrinsically motivated (related to

students’ real life needs).
 Curriculum is flexible and should be adapted to students’
needs/interests.
Sheltered Content
 In a sheltered class, the teacher uses special methods and
techniques to "shelter subject matter," i.e., make the content
more accessible to second language learners.
Subject-Matter Core
 The fundamental organization of CBI curriculum is derived from the subject
matter, rather than from forms, functions, situations, or skills.
 Communicative competence is acquired during the process of learning the
content.
 Any study about the language is done in order to use language as a tool to
communicate about the content.
 Language-based courses, according to Swaffar (in Krueger & Ryan, 1993),
assume that language must be mastered before content can be understood,
whereas content-based courses assume the reverse: ". . . students must think
about what content means in order to know what they are looking for in
language" (p. 185).
 Attention is shifted from learning language to learning language through
content.
(Some)
Theoretical Foundations
 Krashen’s Comprehensible Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1982;
1985)
 Offers students contextualized language curricula built around
meaningful, comprehensible input

 Cummins’ Two-Tiered Skill Model

 Basic Interpersonal Language Skills (BICS)
 Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP)
 Cummins (1981) argued that learners cannot acquire cognitive
academic language skills from everyday conversation; developing
these cognitive skills requires task-based, experiential learning
typified by students’ interactions with contexts, tasks, and texts
that present them with complex interdisciplinary content.
(Some)
CBI History (1/3)
 Unlike English for Specific Purposes (ESP), CBI often lacks
formal teacher training.
 Brinton, Snow, and Wesche (1989) noted “The very notion
of converting to content-based teaching involves re-
educating teachers to view their instructional domain and
responsibilities quite differently than they might previously
have. Unless adequately prepared for their new teaching
duties, teachers will invariably have to fight the urge to rely
on their traditional teaching techniques as well as on
materials and lesson plans developed over the years for a
different audience, many of which may be inconsistent with
the goals of the content-based program. (pp. 74-75)
(Some)
CBI History (2/3)
 Master (1992) also noted “CBI requires an adjustment on
the part of the ESL teacher, who may be intimidated by the
prospect of having to teach subject matter with which he or
she may not be familiar. This fear of subject matter is well
known to English for Specific Purposes (ESP)
practitioners, who have long had to deal with the same
issue, but for ESL it raises questions about teacher training
for new teachers and teacher development for those who
have been teaching ESL for some time.” (p. 77)
(Some)
CBI History (3/3)
 Master (1992) further emphasized that content-area
instructors should receive training in adjusting their speech
and delivery to the needs of English language learners.
How can teachers build the
necessary interdisciplinary
foundation?
 Teachers and administrators must work together to
determine what content knowledge students require.
 The focus should not just be to combine the study of
language with content areas but some content areas may
need to be combined.
 Content area and language teachers may need to
collaborate.
How do teachers achieve the desired
balance between language and
content?
 First, a teacher must ask: “What content will I teach?”

 Regardless of the setting, the content of CBI courses

should be perceived as important, relevant, and useful to
the learners.
 Some students will have the language abilities to receive
more native-like content based instruction but for others
they will require more sheltered content instruction.
Who will teach the course, a
language teacher, a content
specialist, or both?
 Regardless of how administration decides to handle this problem,
instructors must be more than just good language teachers.
 Instructors must be knowledgeable in the subject matter and know
how to elicit that knowledge from their students.
 This combination of skills is not often found in a single language
instructor.
 A team-teaching approach may offer an advantage; however, the
multi-teacher approach is not the only approach.
 In cases in which a language teacher takes on a CBI course single-
handedly but lacks the content knowledge, the acquisition of the
necessary expertise will be a major challenge to the teacher.
How do teachers define and
evaluate student learning
outcomes?
 Learning activities focus on understanding and conveying
authentic messages and accomplishing realistic tasks using
authentic language.
 Communicative oral interviews can also be effective means
of assessment.
How do teachers provide students
with the appropriate authentic input?
 Using grade school or high school texts has a dual benefit.

 Such textbooks present simplified, yet authentic, input while

providing students with insight into the world view of the
culture being studied.
 The core materials include texts, videotapes, audio recordings,
and visual aids selected primarily from those produced for
native speakers of the language.
 The time required to develop a library of "authentic materials,"
is significant time in finding the materials, planning the scope
and sequence of topics, updating the materials, and preparing
activities to exploit them.
What are the appropriate activities
and tasks to exploit this authentic
input?
 Klee and Tedick (1997) claim that the successful CBI
instructors need to use a wide variety of sheltering
activities that includes lectures, small- and large-group
activities, student projects and presentations, invited
speakers, and the use of all sorts of audio-visual aids.
 The question of how much authentic text reading to assign
is one of the crucial decisions in sheltering content.
 If students seem overwhelmed with readings, a teacher may
assign specific portions of the readings to each student and
ask them to take turns leading a discussion on their
assignment.
What is the role of students' first
language in coping with authentic
language and texts?
 A common technique in CBI classes is to use readings on relevant topics
in the students' native language to support readings and activities in the
foreign language.
 CBI in the hands of an expert can help learners to develop the needed
tolerance for ambiguity and to develop strategies for coping with large
quantities of unknown information.
 Unfortunately, the traditional practice of linguistically "spoon-feeding"
students and always keeping the foreign language input to small,
manageable chunks, is not necessarily conducive to developing the
coping skills that are needed to function in the real world.
 If the input is artificially kept to only small chunks at a time, then the
learner can easily choke, especially if the learner has become
accustomed to depending on translation to get the meaning.
How do teachers deal with error
correction to maximize learning
and motivation?
 Do not overemphasize the importance of grammatical
competence.
 Only correct learners when communication breakdowns
occur.
How can teachers use student input to
ensure ongoing evaluation and
adjustment?
 For CBI programs to meet the needs of students, there must
be a mechanism for ongoing program evaluation and the
flexibility to make adjustments based on student input.
References
 Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-based second language
instruction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
 Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational
success for language minority students. In J. Cummins (Ed.), Schooling and language minority
students: A theoretical framework (pp. 1-50). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination, and
Assessment Center.
 Klee, C. A., & Tedick, D. J. (1997). The undergraduate foreign language immersion program in
Spanish at the University of Minnesota. Content-based instruction in foreign language
education: Models and methods, 141-173.
 Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.

 Krashen, S. (1985). Input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.

 Krueger, M., & Ryan, F. (1993). Language and content: Discipline-and content-based
approaches to language study (Vol. 3). DC Heath & Co.
 Master, P. (1992). What are some considerations for teacher training in content-based
instruction? The CATESOL Journal, 5(1), 77-84.