Content-based classes 48 

Content-based instruction (CBI) is considered an umbrella term to cover a variety of approaches that focus on language as well as content learning objectives (Stoller, 2008). Even though Rodgers states that ‘the subject matter is the focus of classroom instruction; the acquisition of language is seen as a natural consequence or by-product of subject matter learning’ (Rodgers, 2006: 373), many may not agree with Rodgers. For example, Stoller (2008) argues that in the CBI approach there is a dual commitment to both content and language development, while Richards and Rodgers

49

(1986) claim that it is an approach to second language teaching in which teaching is organised around content topics. This view is agreed by Brinton, Snow, and Wesche (1989) as well as Dueñas (2004) who states that the aim of CBI is to integrate particular content with language teaching aims.

Though the objective of the CBI is learning a language through content there is a key question as to whether students in the CBI classroom make improvements solely in content and receptive skills or whether their production also develops (Rodgers, 2006). Connected to this, another question is whether content-based classes provide opportunities for students to learn the language mainly by producing opportunities for interaction. I refer to three studies that tried to investigate these questions below. These three studies take place in a sequence and are influenced by each other. The first and the third are content classes, while the second is an ESL class.

The first of the studies was conducted by Musumeci (1996) in a post secondary content-based classroom that teaches social geography for students who learn Italian as a second language taught by native or near native speaker teachers of L2 Italian. Her main focus was to test the negotiation of meaning proposed by the interaction hypothesis; how failure to comprehend is signalled and how messages are modified. Three lectures were recorded and transcribed. The results of the study revealed that teachers dominated the classroom talk, speaking around 70% of the time. An important finding was that they managed the classroom talk by initiating the majority of the verbal exchanges with students by means of a question. This most often occurs in the form of an explicit request for information. The major concern in Musumeci’s (1996) study is that in her context teachers modified their speech without any linguistic intervention from the students. Teachers did not ask the students to modify

50

their speech either. As the teachers did not intervene with the students’ speech or did not provide any feedback to the students, there was no negotiation between the teacher and students to modify their speech either. Therefore, Musumeci considers that content-based classes rarely provided opportunities for students to produce the language. Based on this she suggests that further research is needed to discover why teachers did not signal their nonunderstanding or encourage students to signal their nonunderstanding.

The second of these studies was carried out by Pica in 2002. She analysed how the teachers modified interaction about subject matter content in order to assist the input, feedback, and production needs of L2 learners in content-based ESL classes conducted by two ESL instructors in an American university. Data were collected by audio and video recording of class meetings for 7 weeks (1 hour a week). Pica (2002) found that even though the content-based classes provided a meaningful context for students’ development of form and meaning, in practice the negotiation did not promote the focus on form. The classroom discussion focused on the subject-matter content in the L2, but teachers did not make any intervention or instruction on L2 form. In other words, her results indicate that the focus on form was minimal; teachers tended to focus almost exclusively on the content of the message and not on the learners’ linguistic difficulties.

Like Musumeci (1996), Pica (2002) could not find evidence of teachers involving or assisting students in producing the language. That is, both Pica and Musumeci did not find evidence that CBI classes provide opportunities for students to develop language. The opportunities for interaction were minimal in those CBI classes and therefore, the question arises whether content classes could support language development.

51

While the two studies discussed above did not produce any favourable results for the relationship between interaction and language development, the third study, conducted by Rodgers (2006) based on the findings of those two previous studies, brought somewhat different results. Rodgers (2006) comments that ‘one aspect of CBI that remains controversial is the apparent gap that exists between learners’ content knowledge and their functional linguistic abilities’ (p.373). In addition, the problem Rodgers raises with regard to other researchers is that they try to separate content learning from language learning. He argues that those two are inseparable.

The basic assumption Rodgers (2006) makes is that learners in the CBI classes make considerable improvement in their oral and written production though it is not comparable to the improvement in their content knowledge. His study, therefore, focused mainly on whether the learners improved their content knowledge, written production and also speaking abilities. The context of his study was a university level Italian geography CBI course with 43 NNS students. Students were evaluated at two stages at week 2 and 12 using a cloze test, oral interview and a written composition on a content topic relevant to the lessons. The findings revealed that there was considerable improvement in the content knowledge of the learners (a 50% gain over 10 weeks from week 2). In addition, the participants’ form-function abilities improved in both written and oral production. In all cases the results were significant. Based on these findings, Rodgers considers that the CBI classes provide more meaningful and communicative contexts. Nevertheless, this study did not consider the other sources of knowledge that could contribute to their enhanced performance, other than the CBI classes. In addition, there could be possible biases in the way the tests were designed, administered and evaluated. Therefore the result of the study can be valid with further research only, with more stringent testing and evaluation measures.

52

Even though, Pica and Musumeci state that in CBI classes focus on form did not take place, it does not downplay the potential of CBI classes where both content and language can be developed. This depends on the ability of the teachers to exploit the focus on content as well as language. Moreover, Rodgers argues that there is a possibility in content classes to develop both content and language.

Having completed this review of CBI classes for the benefit of interaction towards second language production, I now move on to the role of interaction in L1 content classes at primary and secondary levels.