Rationale of CBI

Content-based instruction is a relatively new approach in the language teaching field,

Tim Murphey (1996) states that throughout time, researchers have been interested in the topic

because of its double function in language learning, “Meaningful language” and “Meaningful

content”. According to Curtain (1995) and Met (1991), “second language acquisition

increases with content-based language instruction, because students learn language best when

there is an emphasis on relevant, meaningful content rather than on the language itself”.

Howatt (1984) notes that there are two versions of the Communicative Approach: a

strong version and a weak version. The weak version could be described as learning to use

English; the strong version entails using English to learn it (Howatt, 1984). Snow (1991)

characterizes CBI as a “method with many faces”- both to make the case for CBI as a method

of language teaching and to portray the great variety of forms and settings in which it takes

place.

There are diversified definitions on CBI because language learners and teachers have

been working on with other approaches and methodologies rather than the term CBI per se. It

is only acknowledged when a key step in designing an effective curriculum that meets the

needs of students, the instructors, and specific programs in order to identify and agree on a

working definition of these terms. It is very important to classify the concept of ‘content’ in

CBI. Crandall & Tucker (1990) describe content as “academic subject matter” while Curtain

& Pesola (1994) express CBI as “curriculum concepts being taught through the foreign

language”. These discrete views represent a contrasting aspect of CBI in which ‘content’

itself is emphasized in a language learning context.

The term of CBI refers to an approach to integrate content and language learning

(Brinton, Snow, & Weschen, 1989). The special contribution of CBI is that it is not

exclusively a language program, but instead, it integrates the learning of language with the

learning of some other contents. Often, content is academic subject matter (Brinton, Snow,

and Wesche, 1989). It has been observed that academic subjects provide natural content for

language study.

According to Snow (1997), “Content, in this interpretation, is the use of subject matter

for second foreign language purposes. Subject matter may consist of topics or themes based

on students interest or needs in an adult EFL setting, or it may be very specific, such as the

subjects that students are currently studying in their elementary classes”.

Drawn from Met (1999), “the term content-based instruction is commonly used to

describe approaches to integrating language and content instruction”, but it is not always used

in the same way. Crandall & Tucker (1990) define content as “an approach to language

instruction that integrates the presentation of topics or tasks from subject matter classes (e.g.,

math, social studies) within the context of teaching a second or foreign language”.

In term of content, there are many definitions of “content” forward this approach. For

example from Crandall and Tucker’s definition, “content is clearly academic subject matter”

while Genesee (1994) suggests that content “need not be academic; it can include any topic,

theme or non-language issue of interest or importance to the learners”. Chaput (1993) defines

content as “any topic of intellectual substance which contributes to the students’

understanding of language in general and the target language in particular”. Met (1999) has

proposed that “content in content-based programs represents material that is cognitively

engaging and demanding for the learner, and is material that extends beyond the target

language or target culture”. Richards & Rogers (2005) have supported that “people learn a

second language more successfully when they use the language as a means of acquiring

information, rather than as an end in itself”. According to Met (1991) “natural language

acquisition occurs in context, which is never learned divorced from meaning, and CBI

provides a context for meaningful communication to occur”.

CBI has been used in a variety of language learning contexts for the last 25 years in

the Western world but, in Vietnam, its popularity and wider applicability have attracted no

long yet. CBI is geared to stimulate students to think and learn through the use of the target

language. Such an approach lends itself quite naturally to the integrated teaching of the four

traditional language skills. In this approach, Brinton (1989) states that students are exposed to

study skills and learn a variety of language skills which prepare them for the range of

academic tasks they will encounter. Also, researchers in second language acquisition offer

additional support for CBI.

Dupuy (2000) points out a lot of evidence in which CBI has its advantages than the

others approaches in language learning and teaching. He claims that “a second language is

most successfully acquired when the conditions mirror those present in first language

acquisition that is, when the focus of instruction is on meaning rather than on form; when the

language input is at or just above the competence of the student, and when there is sufficient

opportunity for students to engage in meaningful use of that language in a relatively

anxiety-free environment” (Dupuy, 2000).

To understand more about the essential characteristics and instructional implications

of CBI, three models of CBI including the theme-based model, the sheltered model, and the

adjunct model, as well as its effect on reading enhancement, are discussed below.