This systematic review examines the current literature on CBI (Content- basedInstruction) methods and summarizes the data as it relates to influen- cing ESL student outcomes in Higher Education. The international tertiary community continues to experience a substantial growth in ESL students, which represent a significant portion of total enrollment. To meet this de- mand for bilingual education EAP (English for Academic Purpose) programs such as CBI curriculum have been widely adopted as the preferred pedagogi- cal approach to address this growing trend in higher education. Despite this popularity, there is a lack of longitudinal research on the efficacy of CBI courses that link this approach to sustained improvement on student aca- demic achievement scores. The findings reviewed herein suggest a positive sustained relationship between CBI curriculum and increased academic per- formance post intervention. The results of this investigative effort also sup- port the seminal literature, which indicates the majority of participants con- sider CBI methods as a suitable pedagogical technique to acquire language and content knowledge, while enhancing long-term academic achievement. This research may inform future practitioners, administrators, and policy makers in the development of ESL programs in the tertiary community.
Competitive learning, in contrast, exists when one student’s goal is achieved while all other students fail to reach that goal (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). Competition results in individuals achieving different outcomes; when one person is successful in attaining a goal, others are prevented from doing so. Under individualistic conditions, each person’s outcome is independent of others (Deutsch et al., 2006; Lin, 1997). Both competitive and cooperative learning have been used in different teaching settings including content-basedinstruction (CBI). In the CBI class, students are tested on content and not language; thus, the focus tends to be on meaning, not form. Knowing that they will be tested on content, students are not tempted to review their grammar and memorize long lists of vocabulary words; rather, they listen closely to lectures, participate in discussions, do topic-related readings, and acquire a great deal of language in the process (Krashen, 1991).
In regard to English improvement, the students reported that the course improved their English speaking and listening and it was also found that the students improved their speaking and listening significantly in pre and post-tests in the previous study (Lai & Aksornjarung, 2017 in press). This finding is in line with that of Doiz and Lagabaster (2016), who found that Spanish secondary school students perceived English improvements in different skills such as pronunciation, vocabulary, speaking, and listening. This improvement in English speaking and listening is closely related to the language input that the students obtained during the content-basedinstruction. Language input especially comprehensible input plays an important role in second or foreign language learning (Krashen, 1982).The students in the present study perceived that they understood the teacher’s speech, and the classroom task instructions, and similarly most of them understood the reading texts and listening audio material used during the class. Lasagabaster and Doiz (2016) suggested that CBI/CLIL is an approach which exposes learners to more English and gives them
With development of technology of computer and internet, it is a beneficial attempt to the reform of College English Teaching based on the subject content with Internet-Based Language Laborato- ry support for non-English-majored undergraduate students. Content-BasedInstruction (CBI) has been defined as “the teaching of content information in the language being learned with little or no direct or explicit effort to teach the language itself separately from the content being taught”, which can make non-English-majored undergraduate students not only learn subject knowledge but also improve their foreign language (English) ability in learning content in Internet-Based Language Laboratory (IBLL). 90 non-English-majored undergraduate students in Yangtze Univer- sity participated in this study for one-year experiment to investigate effects of CBI English teach- ing with IBLL support. Results in this study showed that: 1) Compared with the control group (CG), both CBI English teaching and CBI English teaching with IBLL support could improve the level of English learning motivation of non-English-majored undergraduate students in their English learning, and CBI English teaching with IBLL support is better in enhancing the level of English learning motivation; 2) compared with the control group (CG), both CBI English teaching and CBI English teaching with IBLL support could improve the level of English language applied ability of non-English-majored undergraduate students in their English learning, and CBI English teaching with IBLL support is better in enhancing the level of English language applied ability; 3) both CBI English teaching and CBI English teaching with IBLL support are limited for some non-English- majored undergraduate students with poor foreign language (English) basis.
Besides CSR, since the early 1990s, the popularity and applicability of Content-BasedInstruction (CBI) as a strategy which can be used to develop the process of reading among EFL learners has increased (Stoller, 2002). This strategy, in which cooperative learning is also incorporated (Crandall, 1993, as cited in Duenas, 2004), is one of the best realistic strategies for promoting the development of strategic learners within a language-learning curriculum (Grabe & Stoller, 1997, as cited in Pessoa, Henry, & Donato, 2007). CBI has been stated to encourage the development of the strategic language for the curricular developers (Leave & Stryker, 1989, as cited in Duenas, 2004). Moreover, by using CBI strategy, learners may be able to construct knowledge through a wide range of ways which may lead them to be more independent readers (Barfield, 2003, as cited in Balcikanli, 2010).
At the tertiary level, Brinton, Snow and Wesche (1989) identified three models for content-basedinstruction: theme-based, sheltered and adjunct formats according to their relative focus on language and content. Crandall (1993) also classified CBI into three types: (1.) content-based language instruction, (2.) sheltered subject matter teaching and (3.) language across the curriculum. She defined the first type of CBI as a general approach, in which ESL/EFL teachers use academic texts and tasks as a vehicle for developing language, content and study skills. The second type refers to an approach in which subject teachers adapt the language of their texts to make their instruction accessible to students at lower proficiency levels. The third type means an effort to integrate language instruction into all other curricula—an approach where language and content teachers are teamed together and language teachers derive their materials from the content course. The language teacher emphasizes language skills while the content teacher focuses on academic concepts. These three models can be put on a continuum. At one end of the continuum is the content-driven model (the sheltered CBI) and at the other end is the language-driven format (the theme-based CBI).
of instruction are Basque, Spanish and English, and where the learners are linguistically heterogeneous. No monolithic variation regarding the properties like languages of instruction, the language, societal and educational aims and the typical type of children taking part in these program exists between CBI/CLIL, according to her analyses; therefore, it is to be claimed that if variation occurs circumstantially, it is accidental. Learning the subject matters through medium of second or additional language is considered as Content-basedInstruction (CBI) or Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) (Cenoz & Zarobe, 2014). Coyle, Hood & Marsh (2010) opine, CLIL is an educational approach where teaching and learning of both content and language are accomplished using an additional language, and it explicates that in the classroom focus is not only on the content, and not only on the language. Accumulation of both is prevailed in the classroom. In addition, some authors identified both terms synonymous (Ruiz de Zarobe, 2008, p. 61 footnote). In fine, it the bottom line can be drawn in this way that CBI and CLIL, in respect to their setting, aim and objective, contents, and implementation, are same.
In the post-massification period, it is a beneficial attempt to the reform of English Teaching based on subject content for non-English-majored graduate students. Content-BasedInstruction (CBI) has been defined as “the teaching of content information in the language being learned with little or no direct or explicit effort to teach the language itself separately from the content being taught”, which can make non-English-majored graduate students not only learn subject knowledge but also improve their foreign language (English) ability in learning content. Results in this study showed that: in the post-massification period, content-based English teaching could improve the level of motivation and English language ability of students in their English learning, but CBI was not suit- able for poor English learners with no good foreign language (English) basis.
By definition, CBI is a type of EAP (James, 2006) and, as an umbrella term (Valeo, 2013), refers to a total body of immersion project (Cenoz, 2015). Also, in descriptive terms, content-based language teaching (CBLT), or content-basedinstruction (CBI), is founded on Krashen‟s (1987) theory of the Monitor model and comprehensible input, thus CBLT is in line with the reality that language learning happens when students are involved in texts and activities that are meaningful to them and suitable to their needs, without openly focusing only on the linguistic forms and structures. Evidence from immersion studies (Dupuy, 2000; Lazaruk, 2007; Tan, 2011; Leung, 2016)- knowing the number of which is sort of difficult (Tedick & Wesely, 2015) and other CBLT studies conducted in a wide expanse of educational contexts (Swain, 1988, 1996; Tan, 2011; Borg, 2003) have found that learners develop fluency, functional abilities, and confidence in using their second language. Learners also demonstrate equal or higher performance levels in subject matter (Davison, 2006; Turnbull, & Lapkin, & Hart, 2001). These studies indicate that CBLT can be highly successful, especially in early immersion contexts.
Students coming from vernacular background face problems when they have to use the target language. Various activities are thought of related to the subject being taught and students are geared to stimulate to think and learn through the use of the target language. Content-basedinstruction (CBI) has led to the integrated teaching of the four language skills. For example, it employs authentic reading materials which require students not only to understand information but to interpret and evaluate it as well. It provides a platform where students can respond orally to reading and lecture materials. It recognises that academic writing follows from listening and reading, and thus requires students to synthesize facts and ideas from multiple sources as preparation for writing. Thus CBI has helped students to get exposed to study skills and learn a variety of language skills which prepare them for the range of academic tasks that they will encounter.
In general, these teachers have adequate pedagogical content knowledge as they are able to integrate their understanding by combining subject matter content, instructional methods and students characterisctics. As trained and experienced teachers, they realized the need to use a variety of teaching methods, resources strategies to maximise student learning process in the contentbasedinstruction. However, teaching content subject matter such as mathematics and science in English can be very challenging when students have varying level of proficiency. Based on this scenario, there is a need to find ways to create a positive learning environment that will encourage and motivate student to like learning science and mathematics in English and at the same time improve their level of English proficiency. Getting support from the school, parents and surrounding community can further facilitate the process of learning science and mathematics in English. In line with Hamidah’s et al. (2005) study, the implementation of contentbasedinstruction in English in Malaysian school can be further improved by providing numerous and consistent in-house training and workshop. Combined with teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and students’ increased interest, attitude and motivation, the process of teaching and learning science and mathematics in English will be enhanced.
subject matter instruction. Each lesson in a content-based class has content (e.g., math, science, social studies) and language objectives (e.g., grammar, functions). Students learn language through the context of specific subject matter rather than through isolated language features. This type of instruction focuses on the idea that language should not be taught in an isolated way, but rather within a meaningful context, which will not only basically motivate the learners, but also will empower them. According to Davies (2003), CBI is a teaching method that emphasizes learning about something rather than learning about language. (Richards, 2006) also believe that content is the information or subject matter that we learn or communicate through language rather than the language used to convey it. It can be used as the framework for a unit of work, as the guiding principle for an entire course, as a course that prepares students for mainstreaming, as the rationale for the use of English as a medium for teaching some school subjects in an EFL setting, and as the framework for commercial EFL/ESL materials (Richards, 2006). Contentbasedinstruction is an ultimate approach to learning the target language ( Kasper, 2000 ). It fits in well with broader principles of language teaching and learning, and it can be applied in various situations. It could be used efficiently in ESL as well as EFL classrooms Richards & Rodgers, 2001). According to Brinton, Snow and Wesche (1989: 2) CBI is
Abstract: Background/Objectives: As the world keeps growing closer through globalization, the need to nurture competent medical professionals fit for our times is increasing. Methods/Statistical analysis: The questionnaire consisted of a section on personal information and an opinion on English language training for dental hygiene students. In order to investigate learning needs and target needs, dental hygiene students were surveyed. Findings: The anonymous survey consisted of parts pertaining to personal information, learners’ needs about dental hygienist’ tasks, and open comments about English education for dental hygiene students. These finding includes the differences and similarities in the importance ranking of notion, function, and type of language skills between the three study groups. These results also show differences depending on categories such as grade levels, or the type of medical institute. Improvements/Applications: The selected concepts and functions of this study will be the basic information for developing the ESP course curriculum to train professionals in the medical field. Based on these results, a content-based teaching method for improving English for special purpose education for dental hygienists and students has been proposed.
With the current availability of state-of-the-art technology, particularly the Internet, people have expanded their channels of communication. This has similarly led to many people utilizing technology to learn second/foreign languages. Nevertheless, many current computer-assisted language learning (CALL) programs still appear to be lacking in interactivity and what is termed social presence, which is in turn an obstacle to the learners assuming active roles in their online experience of L2 learning. Consequently, the existing CALL programs do not seem to have updated themselves from the obsolete behavioristic and communicative genres to reach for the integrative one to yield optimum interactivity. The present study has attempted to cast light on the prospect of creating an online learning community that could optimize the patterns of interaction among the students and the teacher with the intention of creating online social presence. Using a qualitative research based on grounded theory, the researchers attempted to collect and analyze the data vis-à-vis the participants’ feedback on the research questions that were cyclically obtained from 42 English students of the first researcher’s weblog through 41 semi- structured interviews at the end of each virtual class on Skype and Discord over one year. The results suggested that content-basedinstruction (CBI) in which the students can opt for and create the content of the course through engaging in asynchronous activities and performing peer-assessment in the comment forms and discussion boards before practicing negotiation of meaning in each synchronous class could maximize the level of student-student interactivity and social presence among the L2 learners.
However, our experience and our studies cited above have demonstrated that, in the conditions of Ukrainian universities, even after a mandatory ESP course based on content- basedinstruction, it is still too early for the absolute majority of Ukrainian students to get involved in total ESP immersion programmes taught in courses of students‟ majoring non- linguistic disciplines. The causes for this are threefold (Tarnopolsky et al., 2008): 1) though, after the content-basedinstruction ESP course, all students reach B2 levels in their command of English, for working effectively in a total immersion programme where the high level of English is taken for granted B2 is not sufficient – something closer to C1 is required; 2) students are not yet quite ready psychologically for total immersion – they are not psychologically prepared to switch from the comfortable environment of the language classroom, where their English is constantly taken care of, to the hard realities of the classroom on a non-linguistic majoring discipline taught in English but without paying attention to possible students‟ deficiency in that language and without giving them any specific help to overcome those deficiencies; 3) after their second year of studies at a higher school, students are still insufficiently trained in the fields of their majors to start studying majoring disciplines in the target language – thus superimposing language difficulties on content difficulties.
The evolution of foreign language teaching ( FLT ) has been discussed by Richards and Rodgers (2001), Celce-Murcia (2001), and Richards (2008), among others. Celce-Murcia states that two main trends have prevailed in L2 instruction: teaching a language so that the apprentice can communicate with NSs (Native Speakers) of that language and function in that society, or, teaching a language in order to analyze its formal aspects (e.g., grammar and vocabulary), that is, learn about that L2. The different methods that emerged along history reflect the needs of learners at a given point in history. For instance, in the 16th century people learned a language to communicate with Europeans in their vernacular languages, while in the 19th century, learning a language was more a mental drill done to strengthen one’s memory and enhance cognitive skills (Richards & Rodgers, 1986, 2001, 2014). In 1929, the Coleman Report suggested that foreign language instruction for college students should be limited to teaching them to read academic texts in other languages. The second half of the 20th century was permeated by communicative language teaching ( CLT ) and interaction, authenticity, meaningful content, and learner needs. Content-basedinstruction, task-based language teaching, and cooperative-language learning feature these tenets. Teaching practices at institutions have been influenced by the different swings of the methodology pendulum, and in the latter part of the 20th century, L2 courses were focused on reading comprehension. However, it is important to remark that the Coleman Report is over 80 years old now and its suitability for our context needs to be evaluated.
However, even the category “help” has been criticized by some researchers. During a usability study, Dickstein and Mills decided to use tips as the category label rather than help based on a suggestion from the User Interface Engineering Web site, which stated the word help somehow implies failure (2000). Dworman and Rosenbaum also suggest that “users may access hints, tips, and quick-reference guides, but refuse to click on something called ‘help’” (2004).
The increasing interest in student centered learning environments, such as PBL, has coincided with an expansion in online learning. Online learning environments should emphasize a student centered constructivist approach and provide students with learning outcomes equivalent to traditional instruction. Phillips (2005) has suggested that problem solving assignments with real world problems can replace the traditional classroom experiences and provide an active learning strategy in the online environment. PBL provides real world problems for students to solve and has been incorporated into online instruction in the health professions and other disciplines (e.g. Anderson & Treadway, 2009; Choi, 2003; Nathoo, Goldhoff, & Quattrochi, 2005; Rounds & Rappaport, 2008; Ryan, Dolling, & Barnet, 2004; Schell & Kaufman, 2009; Spinello & Fischbach, 2004; Valaitis, Sword, Jones, & Hodges, 2005). Despite the growing use of PBL as an online instructional strategy, research to determine changes in content knowledge through online PBL has shown varying results. Sendag and Odabasi (2009) found that online PBL learning did not have a significant effect on content knowledge acquisition. Bilgin, Senocak and Sozbilir (2009) demonstrated improvement in performance on conceptual but not quantitative problem solving when online PBL was utilized. In addition, it has been suggested that both PBL and online learning require students to be motivated and possess self-directed learning readiness (SDLR) in order to achieve desired learning outcomes (Boyd, 2004; Levett-Jones, 2005; Schrum & Hong, 2002; Song, Singleton, Hill, & Koh, 2004). This research study compares content knowledge change between two learning strategies: the first being an online PBL instructional module and the second being traditional instruction in a face to face class. Student attributes of SDLR and motivation and the association of these attributes with content knowledge change are also examined. An increased understanding of the impact of online PBL, as well as SDLR and motivation have on knowledge acquisition is essential to the design of effective instruction. Literature Review
The purpose of this dissertation is to address this gap in the literature by using survey data on the content of teachers’ instruction in mathematics, science, and English language arts and reading (ELAR) to investigate changes in a) alignment to standards and assessments, b) hours of instruction, and c) emphasis on various levels of cognitive demand (e.g., memorizing, procedures) in the years 2003-2009. In addition, attributes of the standards-based accountability system are studied for their relationship with instructional alignment. The methods used include fixed-effects models and three-level hierarchical linear modeling. The results suggest that alignment to standards and assessments in mathematics increased during the years 2003-2009 by approximately .3 to .5 standard deviations. Alignment also increased to science standards at grades 3-8, but there were no consistent changes in alignment in ELAR or at other grades. Shifts of instructional time were small and generally non-significant. Teachers were found to increase their focus on lower-level thinking (e.g., procedure, memorization) in most grades and all three subjects. Generally, these shifts brought teachers’ instruction into greater agreement with standards and assessments. Finally, alignment was higher when standards and assessments were well aligned with each other (average standardized effect size = .22σ), when the standards were broad and focused on many ideas (.50σ), and when the state had stronger policies emphasizing rewards and sanctions (.12σ). Implications for policy and research are discussed.