cbi

1. 25
Content-Based Instruction
Yoon (Christina) Heo
Abstract
Content-Based Instruction (CBI) has been found to be an effective approach to teaching English as a second language
because with CBI, students can develop their language skills as well as gain access to new concepts through meaningful
content. This paper reviews general information about the features of CBI, including its theoretical foundations and
models. The paper also covers several issues to be considered in the application of CBI such as assessment of language
and content, teacher education, and the use of CBI in the EFL classroom. The relationship between CBI and skill-
based instruction, particularly in the teaching of writing, will also be discussed. Finally, I suggest that CBI can fit in
well with broader principles of language teaching and learning in both ESL and EFL situations.
Introduction
Content-Based Instruction (CBI) has been consider for an effective use of Content-
defined as “the teaching of content or in- Based ESL Instruction, including types, syl-
formation in the language being learned labus design, and materials of CBI (Davies,
with little or no direct or explicit effort to 2003).
teach the language itself separately from the
content being taught” (Krahnke, as cited in Theoretical Foundations
Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 204). This Content-Based Instruction is based on three
teaching approach is considered by many main theories of language: “language is text-
researchers an effective and realistic teach- and discourse-based,” “language use draws
ing method in terms of combining language on integrated skills,” and “language is pur-
and content learning. According to Crandall poseful” (p. 208). First, in Content-Based
(1999), CBI can be used in various ways de- Instruction, language teaching focuses on
pending on the skills being taught and in- how information and meaning from mean-
cludes not only traditional teaching methods ingful content are utilized in discourse or
such as grammar-based instruction or vo- texts, not in single sentences. Next, the
cabulary development but also contempo- skills of the target language are not separate
rary approaches such as communicative from each other, and they together are in-
language teaching and humanistic methods volved in all activities. For example, stu-
(p. 604). CBI is also supported by Krashen’s dents in CBI are supposed to “read and take
“Monitor Model”: if students are given notes, listen and write a summary, or re-
comprehensible input, it is less difficult to spond orally to things they have read or
learn the target language, and as a result, written” (p. 208). Moreover, grammar is
they can acquire (verses. learn) it. Krashen considered a component of all language
(1982) emphasized ways of decreasing skills, not a separate one for language learn-
learner anxiety, such as providing interesting ing. Lastly, using language is always for a
texts as well as meaningful activities, which certain purpose, and a key purpose of using
are comprehensible to learners, and CBI has language is to communicate meaning (pp.
the following essential features: “learning a 208-209).
language through academic content, engag- According to Richards and Rodgers
ing in activities, developing proficiency in (2001), “language is purposeful” (p. 208).
academic discourse, fostering the develop- When learners have purposes, which may
ment of effective learning strategies” (Cran- be “academic, vocational, social, or recrea-
dall, p. 604). Thus, this methodology puts tional,” and concentrate on them, they can
emphasis on “learning about something rather be motivated depending on how much their
than learning about language” (p. 604). There interest can be in their purposes (p. 208).
are several issues which teachers should Language also includes the main purpose,

2. 26
communication. To give students compre- teaching method in terms of “contextual-
hensible input for their purposes, teachers ized language curricula” (Brinton, Snow, &
have to ponder how teachers would be able Wesche, 1989, as cited in Kasper, 2000,
to communicate with students in the target p. 4).
language. Stryker and Leaver (1993), as cited Cummins’s two-tiered skill model
in Richards and Rodgers (2001), suggested (1981), as cited in Kasper (2000), showed
that teachers use the following examples: that students should be supposed to de-
Foreigner talk or modifications that velop these language skills through CBI:
make the content more understand- BICS, basic interpersonal communication skills
able: modification includes simplifica- (“the ability to converse with others and to
tion (e.g., use of shorter T units and articulate needs in the L2”) and CALP, cogni-
clauses), well-formedness (e.g., using tive academic language proficiency (“the ability to
few deviations from standard usage), use the L2 both to understand complex, of-
explicitness (e.g., speaking with nonre- ten decontextualized linguistic structures,
duced pronunciation), regularization and to analyze, explore, and deconstruct the
(e.g., use of canonical word order), and concepts presented in academic texts”) (p.
redundancy (e.g., highlighting impor- 5). Cummins’s main idea was that it would
tant materials through simultaneous be impossible for ESL learners to acquire
use of several linguistic mechanism. academic language skills from general ESL
(p. 209) classes and everyday conversation; to de-
The views above are the foundations velop these skills, which the learners need in
of Content-Based Instruction, and the theo- the next step of academic courses and regu-
retical importance of CBI is that through lar classes, they need “complex interdisci-
CBI learners can “interact with authentic, plinary content” (p. 5). Therefore, content-
contextualized, linguistically challenging ma- based ESL instruction needs to include
terials in a communicative and academic both the common features that other meth-
context” (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 4). ods have in ESL teaching and an integral
CBI promotes three theoretical founda- part in language learning. Content-Based
tions: Krashen’s comprehensible input hy- Instruction is used not only for teaching the
pothesis, Cummins’s two-tiered skill model, target language, which is the same goal of
and cognitive learning theory, which will be other methods, but also for providing “a
explained below. less abrupt transition before programs”
Krashen (1985) explained the differ- (Crandall, 1995, p. 6).
ence between learning and acquisition: even The third foundation of CBI is cogni-
though both terms are used to describe sec- tive learning theory, in which it is believed
ond language skill development, acquisition that learning is accumulated and developed
is more closely related to the process of first in several stages: first, the cognitive stage (the
language development, while learning is of- learners are developing the language skills
ten the case for second language develop- through the required tasks), then, the associa-
ment (p. 4). For example, immigrants to the tive stage (they are more improved and have
US who are at young ages (i.e., before the strengthened their skills, but still need sup-
critical period) may be said to acquire Eng- port to accomplish the tasks), and finally,
lish as a second language. They can develop the autonomous stage (they are able to “per-
the target language as their native language. form the tasks automatically and autono-
Learning, on the other hand, involves adult mously”) (Anderson, 1983, as cited in
learners such as those in ESL courses plan- Kasper, 2000, p. 5). This theory maintains
ning to enter a university in the United the idea that students progress in their
States. Thus, Krashen believed that learning learning through the stages listed above and
a second language should be similar to ac- that students require “extensive practice and
quisition if it is to be effective: the focus of feedback, as well as instruction in the use of
acquisition is on meaning rather than form. various strategies” (Kasper, 2000, p. 5).
From this perspective, CBI is an effective

3. 27
In addition to these theories, Richards gested that teacher should think about –
and Rodgers (2001) introduced another “(a) learning a language by studying of aca-
view on learning, which shows additional demic text, (b) focusing student attention
assumptions underlying the principles of on underlying knowledge and discourse
CBI: structures of academic text, (c) developing
People learn a second language most students’ learning strategies, (d) focusing on
successfully when the information they holistic language development through inte-
are acquiring is perceived as interesting, grated thematic units, (e) developing aca-
useful, and leading to a desired goal. demic language, skills, and discourse
Some content areas are more useful as through the use of texts, tasks, and themes
a basis for language learning than oth- drawn from other content areas, and (f) fo-
ers. Students learn best when instruc- cusing on the development of tasks, themes,
tion addresses students’ needs. Teach- and topics” (Crandall, 1999, p. 606). Thus,
ing builds on the previous experience in content-based language instruction,
of the learners. (pp. 209-211) teachers should account for academic con-
Moreover, Snow and Brinton (1988) cepts and language skills at the same time.
studied “essential modes of academic writ- According to Davison and Williams (2001),
ing, academic reading, study skills develop- as cited in Stoller (2004), courses taught
ment and the treatment of persistent struc- through CBI present students with themes
tural errors” (p. 556). According to their related to academic concepts so they can
study, the activities of CBI could enable learn the language they need depending on
learners to learn the target language by syn- “the weighting of different curricular ele-
thesizing all information and the new input ments” (p. 268). As an example model,
from meaningful and authentic text and Martin (1990), as cited in Stryker and Leaver
content. It could also make them integrate (1997) proposed? to initiate this approach
the four traditional skills through discus- with “thematic modules” from Krashen’s
sions and writing about the materials. In aspect (p. 14). It was found to be? an effi-
addition, if “a strong network of tutorial cient? approach to try to apply CBI to the
and counseling services, as well as an on- existing program, but teachers did not need
campus residential program and an organ- to totally change all elements that the pro-
ized recreational and social program” can be gram had. They needed to make only mini-
offered to students, CBI can provide stu- mal changes. Martin used “the modular
dents with effective benefits in their learn- format,” which “is self-contained and,
ing with the original content (p. 556). therefore, flexible, movable, and relatively
inexpensive to implement since elaborate
Models of CBI interdisciplinary collaboration is not re-
To design a content-based lesson, teachers quired” (p. 15).
should consider their linguistic, strategic, There are several general subjects that
and cultural objectives. Through the class, are used in CBI: mathematics, science, and
students are supposed to improve their social studies. Cuevas (1981), as cited in
English skills, to learn strategies to be ap- Crandall (1995), successfully introduced the
plied in all subject areas, and to understand Second Language Approach to Mathematics
the culture of English-speaking people Skills (SLAMS), which can be applied to
(Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 211). More- regular mathematics lessons. It involves the
over, according to Crandall (1999), second objectives of CBI through mastering the
language instructional models (as described mathematics concepts and the language
by several researchers including Edward skills. Thus, SLAMS was made up of two
(1984), Milk (1990), Mohan (1986), Tang strands, one focusing on mathematics con-
(1993), Chamot (1994), O’Malley (1994), tent and the other, language skills (p. 32).
Enright (1988), McCloskey (1988), Spanos Kessler and Quinn (n.d.), as cited in Cran-
(1990), and Grabe (1997)) should be con- dall (1995) introduced Science Learning and
sidered with several features. They sug- Second Language Acquisition as an example

4. 28
of CBI: the lesson gives learners new sci- this case, two teachers team teach. One
ence concepts through the text and enables teacher gives a short lecture and the other
them to acquire the language skills (p. 71). teacher checks the students’ understanding
While the learners interact with the new in- of the content and helps with any problems.
put, they can develop their language skills. The other model, called the adjunct model,
However, it is arguable that learners need a is a kind of “EPA (English Proficiency As-
certain level of language fluency and profi- sessment) or ESP (English for Special Pur-
ciency (p. 71). To support the positive side poses) class, where emphasis is placed on
of CBI, Penfield and Ornstein-Garlicia acquiring specific target vocabulary” (Da-
(1981), as cited in Crandall (1995) suggested vies, 2003). The classes are taught by ESL
that depending on the class situation, teach- teachers, and the main purpose is to enable
ers may use the learners’ first language to students to follow ordinary classes which
introduce and discuss new scientific con- they are required to take with other students
cepts (pp. 71-72). The effectiveness of speaking English as their native language.
teaching science through CBI is revealed in Some adjunctive classes are offered in the
bilingual as well as monolingual English en- summer months before the beginning of a
vironments. English can be developed along regular semester.
with learning science (p. 72). Finally, King,
Fagan, Bratt, and Baer (n.d.), as cited in Assessment of Language and
Crandall (1995), strongly believed that social Content in CBI
studies classes taught through CBI would be Assessment of CBI can be a problematic
excellent for second language development component, and yet it is critical that instruc-
with the following class activities: “follow- tors evaluate students’ learning (Kasper,
ing directions, reading maps and charts, out- 2000, p. 19). Student performance in most
lining, note-taking, using textbooks, prepar- ESL classes is evaluated by general assess-
ing oral with written reports, interpreting ment tasks such as “discrete, decontextual-
cartoons, and using library references” (p. ized tasks,” and their main focus is on lin-
108). Students are encouraged to learn new guistic structure or vocabulary (pp. 19-20).
subject matter and are able to apply specific However, students in CBI classes cannot be
language skills for a certain purpose. Ac- evaluated in the traditional way because they
cording to the researchers, social studies were exposed to more input and content
concepts are the most meaningful concepts information through the class. According to
to use when teaching language skills (p. 108). Kasper (2000), “designing authentic and in-
Thus, using CBI in social studies classes of teractive content-based assessment” was
CBI may “enhance and accelerate students’ required because learners in CBI had to
language acquisition, as well as assist in the “complete discourse level tasks” and the
acculturation process” (p. 113). skills evaluated in the assessment were in an
Not all schools are able to offer classes academic setting (p. 20). Students are re-
dedicated to CBI, but there are two alterna- quired to interact critically with academic
tives: the sheltered model and the adjunct materials in terms of meaningful and con-
model of CBI (Davies, 2003). These enable textualized text to analyze their knowledge
students both to learn English skills in an (p. 20). Assessment of CBI should not be
ESL class situation and to experience the simple and isolated; students must be re-
language usage in a real situation with their quired “to integrate information, to form,
English-speaking peers. The difference be- and to articulate their own opinions about
tween the models explained above and the the subject matter,” not to analyze the lin-
sheltered model is that the students can ob- guistic structure of the target language (p.
tain assistance from two teachers. Accord- 20).
ing to an example in Davies (2003), this Crandall (1999) also mentioned that it
model was effectively applied to speakers of would be impossible for teachers to “sepa-
two languages, English and French, at the rate conceptual understanding from linguis-
bilingual University of Ottawa. Generally, in tic proficiency” in CBI when they want to

5. 29
evaluate students’ learning (p. 608). With is generally used in ESL, the teacher can de-
that thought, he suggested that teachers sign a syllabus that includes broad and vari-
could make assessment of students’ learning ous topics which students would be inter-
through “paper and pencil tests to include ested in, and offer additional supplements
journal entries, oral responses to questions from the Internet, newspapers, and other
or reports, demonstrations of understanding, diverse reading sources organized by topics.
and student projects” (p. 608). In addition, This model is to teach both the content and
“checklists or inventories” can be used to language skills. The CBI EFL teachers
assess language development: it may show should care about assessment as much as
each student’s mastery of the lesson includ- their ESL counterparts. Continuous assess-
ing concepts and structure (p. 608). These ment is needed in CBI and “daily quizzes,
methods have been developed as alternative journals, and direct oral feedback” can be
strategies to assess students’ learning. used (Davies, 2003). Their teaching phi-
losophy is that learners’ motivation may be
Teacher Education for CBI highly activated by interesting topics and
Teacher education is a complex issue in CBI. content and that learners need to enjoy
Students in a CBI class are supposed to learning. Therefore, theme-based CBI is the
learn the target language and some concepts best teaching approach for combining lan-
related to the content at the same time. It guage learning and content learning (Davies,
means that teachers should be knowledge- 2003).
able in the two areas and effectively “com- Another positive CBI example is
bine language and content instruction” shown in Adamson’s case study of teaching
(Crandall, 1999, p. 608). According to sociolinguistics to Japanese and Chinese
Crandall (1999), teachers who are to teach second grade students in Japan (Adamson,
the target language with CBI have to be n.d., p. 1). Through “collaborative dia-
trained in places where specialized teacher logue,” the CBI increased students’ per-
training for CBI exists such as in Florida formance and also reduced students’ anxiety
and California in the United States, and in related to interaction in class (Swain, year?
Australia (p. 608). Moreover, teacher educa- as cited in Adamson, n.d., p.1). The study
tion programs may be developed in collabo- describes “how multilingual collaboration in
rative projects, which are done between sci- a sociolinguistics course has created an ac-
ence or social studies teachers and language tive atmosphere where the discussion and
teachers (p. 608). Therefore, to be an ESL negotiation of content-based meaning”
teacher for CBI, one needs sufficient time (p. 9).
to master “co-planed curriculum and in-
struction” (p. 608). The Relationship between Content-
Based and Skill-Based Instruction:
Content-Based Instruction in the CBI and Teaching Writing Skills
EFL Classroom Shih (1986) showed that CBI can be effec-
The interest in Content-Based Instruction tively used to teach writing. (p. 623). Ac-
has spread to EFL classroom situations be- cording to Shih’s study, CBI is distinctive
cause teachers believe that the language from the traditional approaches in four fea-
education in those contexts should be more tures (p. 623). Students are supposed to
like ESL situations. Even though the ap- write something related to the text that they
proach cannot be applied in the same way, read or heard through lectures in class, and
an alternative form called “the theme based the writing should be focused on “synthesis
model” has been introduced in some coun- and interpretation” of the new input (p.
tries (Davies, 2003). According to Davies, 623). Writing here is not about personal or
an EFL teacher and a content specialist can individual experiences, which were the main
teach together for the theme-based CBI, the topics of the traditional language classroom.
content is not as limited or specific as in an Moreover, the class focused on “what is
ESL classroom. Instead of the content that said more than on how it is said,” which is

6. 30
revealed in teachers’ responses to students’ skills through the text, and to think about
writing (p. 623). Even though the students specific subject matter critically (Shih, 1986,
are learning the target language and their p. 640). In addition to Shih, Richards and
performance is limited, the skills required in Rodgers (2001) considered CBI “a means of
class are integrated into the academic acquiring information rather than an end in
courses. Finally, the topics for the classes itself”: learners succeed in learning the lan-
are extended, and students are required to guage because CBI is enough to motivate
think critically, do research, and use lan- them, and it makes the class more effective
guage abilities equivalent to those of stu- (p. 207). Moreover, this is the most impor-
dents speaking English as their native lan- tant point about CBI: CBI is believed to
guage (p. 624). Thus, content-based better reflects learners’ needs in terms of
academic writing instruction in ESL should preparation for academic courses and helps
be emphasized for second language learn- the learners access the content of academic
ers’ future study in English. This method learning (p. 207).
may be valuable for enabling them to im-
prove and develop the required skills for Conclusion
their academic courses because it may di- Content-Based Instruction can help learners
rectly affect their performance in the next develop their language skills for academic
learning stage. use as well as provide them with access to
Useful and practical assignments play new concepts through meaningful content
important roles in this approach. Brostoff (Crandall, 1999, p. 609). CBI is an ideal ap-
(1974), as cited in Shih (1986), suggested proach to learning the target language, but
that adequate assignments should help stu- for a content-based pedagogy, there are
dents remember the text and new input, as special concerns such as assessment and
well as understand the concepts from their teacher education (Kasper, 2000, p. 22).
content through their work (p. 636). In ad- CBI fits in well with broader principles of
dition to completing the work, the students language teaching and learning, and it can
must go through a real-world process in- be applied in various situations. It could be
stead of using independent, creative, or un- used effectively in ESL as well as EFL class-
realistic thoughts (p. 636). For example, to rooms. Of course, as with any teaching ap-
write about the ways to keep a healthy body, proach, alternative lesson plans may be re-
students directly research the information quired to apply this approach in a real ESL
and put it together in their writing, instead or EFL classroom because there is not a
of producing their own ideas as four or five perfect language teaching approach to be
paragraph essays in a regular writing class. applied in all situations. In conclusion, CBI
According to Shih’s conclusion regard- can be considered as “the leading curricula
ing the use of content-based approach to approach in language teaching,” as long as it
teach writing, writing is a specific tool is used in a suitable language teaching situa-
which enables students to make judgments tion (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 220).
about the meaning of text after thinking
carefully about it, to improve their language
References
Adamson, J. (n.d.). From EFL to content- Crandall, J. (Ed.). (1995). ESL through con-
based instruction: What English teach- tent-area instruction. McHenry, IL: Delta
ers take with them into the sociolin- System.
guistics lecture. Asian EFL Journal. Re- Crandall, J. (1999). Content-based instruc-
trieved September 20, 2006, from tion (CBI). Concise encyclopedia of educa-
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/ tional linguistics. Oxford, UK: Cam-
pta_november_8_ja.pdf bridge University Press.
Davies, S. (2003). Content based instruction
in EFL contexts. The Internet TESL

7. 31
Journal, 9(2), Retrieved September 20, Snow, M., & Brinton, D. (1988). Content-
2006, from http://iteslj.org/Articles/ based language instruction: Investigat-
Davies-CBI.html ing the effectiveness of the adjunct
Kasper, L. (2000). Content-based college ESL model. TESOL Quarterly, 22(4), 553-
instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence 574.
Erlbaum. Stryker, S., & Leaver, B. (Eds.). (1997). Con-
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Ap- tent-based instruction in foreign language
proaches and methods in language teaching. education. Washington, D.C.:
New York: Cambridge University Georgetown University Press.
Press. Stoller, F. (2004). Content-based instruc-
Shih, M. (1986). Content-based approaches tion: Perspectives on curriculum plan-
to teaching academic writing. TESOL ning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
Quarterly, 20(4), 617-648. 24(1), 261-283.

8. 32