CC BY
78CONTENT-BASED INSTRUCTION IN LANGUAGE TEACHING IN
RELATION WITH CLIL: IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME
Laylo Xammadullayevna Alimjanova
Master student of foreign languages and literature (English) Chirchik State Pedadogical Institute
Umida Kamalovna Nosirova
Scientific supervisor
ABSTRACT
The present article has reviewed literature on Content-Based Instruction (CBI) along with the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Language Teaching based on the recent development in the field. This includes the learning principle, factors responsible for the successful implementation of CBI/CLIL, their prospect and outcome. The paper is written based on secondary data from different articles providing exploratory account of contexts observed, paying attention to the views and practices of participants, and review papers on previous studies. The goal is to understand the aspects of CBI, its relation with CLIL, success and shortcoming resulted from the implementation in language teaching.
Keywords: Overview, Content-Based Instruction (CBI), Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), Immersion
INTRODUCTION
The mastery of the learners in Second Language (L2) becomes high when the conditions applied during the First Language (L1) acquisition appear in the second language (L2) acquisition: that is, when the emphasis is given on meaning rather than on form; when the language input is above the competence of the student; and when there is ample opportunity for students to get access to the meaningful use of that language in a relatively stress-less atmosphere (Krashen 1985a; 1985b; Savignon 1983; Snow 1993; Wesche 1993).Thus, with the intention to attain the mastery of the students in English as a Second or Foreign Language by not solely focusing on the language itself, instea d emphasizing the content of the subject matters, which students learn as parts of their academic journey, and which ultimately result in the English proficiency of the students as the course materials are developed in English, Content -based Instruction (CBI) emerged in the mid-
1970s recommended by British governmental commission, which suggested two skillsreading (receptive) and writing (productive)- must be given emphasis during the development of curriculum. It was the result of the „Language across the curriculum' movement during that time (Larsen & Freeman, 2000).
LITERATURE REVIEW
Existing literature has been found to be divided and indulged the discussion among the terms CBI, CLIL and Immersion and its implication on language teaching (Cenoz & Zarobe, 2015; Chamot & O'Malley, 1994; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2008). Therefore, it has become obligatory to incorporate a conceptual analysis to distinct these terms or draw any relation that is predominantly established in the available literature. CBI/CLIL/Immersion needs to be analyzed contextually before the adaptation in a different context or program since, potential impact of integration can lead various pedagogical impediment, which found to be a barrier in the implication among the literature and consequently, the learning of language (Tedick & Wesely 2015). Therefore, based on a categorical analysis of literature on the factors that influence CBI/CLIL/immersion, according to researchers e.g. Cenoz & Zarobe (2014); Gallagher and Leahy (2014); March, Hau, & Kong (2000); Bulter, (2005); Morris & Tarone (2003), is a predetermining factors of integration and impact the language teaching. However, in accordance to the problem stated, the specific aims of the article are following:
1. To investigate, whether CBI, CLIL and Immersion are distinct or identical,
or not.
2. To explore what is the suitable context to implement CBI, in relation to the principle of CBI.
3. To apprehend the potential impact of CBI in the language teaching and learning, in association to implication barriers of CBI.
METHODOLOGY
In order to answer the research questions of the present study, an extensi ve amount of literature has been reviewed and explained. To the review of the related literature, a systematic search has been adopted by using the topic and keywords
Flourishing Creativity & Literacy e.g. CBI, CLIL, Immersion, Bilingual education etc. Searches for peer reviewed articles were conducted in ERIC
(EBSCO or CSA), Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (CSA) and Google Scholar of years year between (2000- 2016) to find out recent and as many numbers of literature as possible related to the topic and keywords.
Collected data were analysed under each heading and sub headings. All data that are collected from different secondary sources are acknowledged accordingly in text and in the reference list.
What is CBI?
CBI is defined as "the concurrent teaching of academic subject matter and second language skills" . It provides authentic, meaningful academic contexts aiming at developing both the language skill and subject-knowledge of the learners. In addition to CBI, some authors perceive that it also aims at improving the repertoire necessitated in the field of learning (Chamot & O'Malley, 1994). Butler (2005) elucidated that CBI facilitates learners in the process of negotiating meaning and practicing the productive language skills, which wil l help them to focus on forms as well as meaning. This is marked as "comprehensible input", which is recommended as being an indispensable issue of CBI (Swain, 1985, 1993). CBI facilitates Cognitively -demanding tasks that, according to Cummins (1992), aid learners in attaining Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP), which leads the learners to the overall academic success. The incorporated cognitive skills and learning strategies into CBI are also corroborated by a number of cognitive and educational theories in principle (Butler, 2005). He added that teachers use a wide range of instructional strategies that entail visual aids, conceptual maps, and analogies by which they purportedly generate meaningful and organized information. As a result, students can successfully enrich their knowledge by adding the new one to the prior one CBI, by providing learners with cognitively challenging content materials and tasks, privileges the students in a way that they can develop self-esteem and critical thought process. In a word, CBI, intrinsically like Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), with corroboration from a number of theories belongs to different academic aspects, with a view to boosting integrated development of learners required to achieve language proficiency and content knowledge.
CBI and Immersion
Highly influenced by Immersion Education is the content-based instruction, and Immersion Education implies the type of foreign language instruction, which theorizes that the medium of regular school curriculum is the foreign language (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Cenoz & Zarobe (2015) define immersion as type of CBI, and it is one of the familiar L2 -medium programs. According to them it was introduced in 1960, Canada intending to assist the bulk of the language learners. So far, two types of immersion programs are designed - One-way immersion and two-way immersion . as mentioned by Tedick & Wesely , is designed for L1 speakers,
and T WI is developed for learners who have heterogeneity in terms of language in the classroom.
2.2 CBI and CLIL, are they Different or Same?
To be the member of the global family, in the first hand, it is important to adapt the International Language (English) in the curriculum. For last 20-25 years, it evident that, worldwide universities have been experiencing the growing necessity to be internationalized, which is resulted from getting access to English language by using it as the medium of instruction, and this scenery prone to take place mostly in non-English speaking countries (Coleman, 2006; Ljosland, 2005). Some approaches are associated with emphasizing on both content and language in an integrated way, and usually get carried out by subject specialists or team teaching. CLIL is one of them. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), which has flourished in Europe since the 1990s as Dalton -Puffer (2007) reported, has been dubbed as "an educational approach where [content] subjects are taught through the medium of a foreign language" to the learners belong to all educational levels . The action of CBI is often regarded as Content and Language integrated learning because learners' primary focus is the content and secondary target is the mastery of the language. Occasionally, some controversies arise regarding whether CBI and CLIL are same or different. CBI is used mostly in North American setting and practice of CLIL is found in Europe .Ground studies on CBI/CLIL programs all over the world, discussed by Cenoz (2014), look at the similarities and differences between the programs generated from their definition. She criticizes the idea of dubbing CLIL as a unique approach. Cenoz leads the discussion focusing on an example in a school in the Basque Country where the languages 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/CLI L, 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-based Instruction (CBI) or Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) opine, CLIL is an educational approach where teaching and learning of both content and language are accomplished using an additional language, and it explicates t hat 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.
CBI Contexts
Typically CBI is implemented in English programs, bilingual programs, foreign language programs, heritage language programs, and other programs across grade levels . Some programs focus on learners' language development (language-driven approaches) while others emphasizes largely on aiding students to acquire the content knowledge by providing different types of cognitive and linguistic corroboration (content-driven approaches) categorizes the pedagogic situations where CBI/CLIL is practiced as the following:
A. Where the local languages are not used institutionally. This is due to the minor users and/or the lower status of the language. Speakers of Quechua in Peru or Nahuatl in Mexico are the worth example belong to this setting.
B. Situation where spoken languages are not part of the curriculum of the host country. To mobilize socially people use these languages, and in these cases home languages are dissimilar to that of the host one. In particular, children comprised to this situation are Turkish speaking people living in Netherlands or Germany.
C. This is typically English as a home language situation. Intending to get excellence in the language skill some subjects are taught through the local minority languages. Example lies on the English-Spanish dual immersion programs in the USA.
D. This situation includes contexts where English is learned as a Foreign Language such as Austria or Sweden and in bilingual regions in areas where English is taught as a third language. Usually, languages of majority or minority people are used at school. That to attain a good job requires the excellence in the English language backs the institutions to teach some subjects in English. Gallagher and Leahy (2014) refer situation B and C as „immersion by default' and „immersion by design' respectively. Situation in which schoolchildren have no access to their L1 at school and are taught in other languages such as English in the case of immigrant students in the UK and Ireland, German in Germany or English in the USA is marked as „immersion by default'. „Immersion by design', they indicate, implies that the school as a place to improve bi/multilingualism and that there is assistance for learners intending to language learning. This is applicable for situation D. Situation A, as Paran 2013 expounds, devised due to lack of choice, which is a common phenomenon in the educational systems in Africa, Asia and South
America. It is worth mentioning that in such contexts native language is different from the academic language.
Shortcoming of CBI/CLIL
Although a bunch of advantages to foster learning lies on CBI/CLIL, neither of them are not free from some shortcomings. The goal of such programs is to develop mastery of the content, which is correlated to attaining the mastery of the language. But when it comes to the reality, it shows the reverse scenario. It is found in practice that apart from triggering on certain terminology pedagogically, CLIL may have ambiguity in targeting at language learning goals (Dalton-Puffer, 2011). CLIL does not have overt emphasis on teaching grammar. This happens because of several identical factors. For the first, as Fortaner (2010) mentioned, teachers in CLIL suffer from short of potential training, which is a prerequisite of the successful implementation of any educational program. Teachers hold the perception that by attending classes conducted in English, learners will have the command in foreign language naturally .Secondly, complicacy is associated with the selecting procedures of course content. Lorenzo, Casal, & Moore (2010) identified, lack of doable materials is responsible in this respect. Finally, according to Huttner (2013), the deployed activities of the teachers and students are creating hindrance, and stakeholders such as researchers and policymakers are not made cognizant about these. In addition to these, the conventional thought of both teachers and students plays an unconstructive role for not having a pragmatic teaching and learning of grammar. Coyle (2013) stated that students' goal is to get the exposure of the language regardless of accuracy. Carrying the same perception in their mind, teachers are less likely to discuss grammatical rules in the classroom. So grammar, core of a language, is not addressed properly in the CLIL/CBI classrooms. It is also elicited that in CLIL classrooms speaking and writing are widely emphasized; perhaps, this is one of the reasons for students not being engaged to learning grammar. The downside of CLIL, as Dalton-Puffer et al. (2009, p. 24) figured out, is that students criticizes the notion of focusing solely on speaking and reading in CLIL classes with writing being perceived as less important, despite the magnitude they feel associated with being skilled in writing to serve professional purposes such as writing reports, memorandum etc.
CONCLUSION
The recent research in the field of Second Language Education has been flourishing, so does the CBI/CLIL and it implication in language teaching. However, the development also leaving gap in the research and practice of the field
(Rahman & Pandian, 2016). According to Rahman and Pandian (2016) sufficient support and assistance e.g. professional development, opportunity for classroom or action research, more research oriented in-service training of the teachers' should be given to the teachers from the educational institution and the government. Teachers' should have their liberty to take decision for the sake of better teaching and learning, allowing them to take part in the selection of the contents, and provide payments within stipulated time period, all kinds of support should be given to the instructors. These will help to develop the morale of the teachers. Butler (2005) illuminated that, not only do the content teachers require a good command in English but also need a greater degree of knowledge about language improvement and usage. He added that they have to be cognizant about learners' proficiency level and language learning strategies. Similarly, he mentioned, language teachers intending to use CBI must be ornamented with the content knowledge to facilitate learning. However, such qualified teachers are absent in many East Asian EFL contexts. Teacher education program can solve this problem. CBI/CLIL oriented programs should be monitored by the related authorities. Multidimensional problems may arise while implementing this. The execution of skilled monitoring can facilitate the useful learning in CBI programs. Nevertheless, it helps to identify the problems, which by taking initiatives can easily be solved. Problem may arise from not understanding the instruction given by the teacher clearly or students' of interest to learn or teachers' lack of knowledge regarding the content or irrelevance between the goal and practiced content. These can lead to the inhibition of motivation and aptitude of the learners. The most controversy results from the accumulation of content and language. Butler (2005) elucidated that although it is difficult to distinguish language and content, some evaluations should be done to understand whether lack of language ability or lack of prior knowledge is responsible for students' low performance. In addition, CBI classes are conducted in the target language. But students in EFL setting lack necessitated command to deal with content, and they are likely to use L1 to understand the content. It is a matter of concern as the primary focus of the curriculum here is to attain mastery over foreign language. The monitoring should also focus on whether teachers fail to encourage or motivate students to learn things using foreign language along with language itself or teachers themselves lack the required command in English. The materials and tasks prepared for classroom practice should also be scrutinized to check whether they suit the students' interest. If any problem from any phase is sorted out, the authority can initiate to solve the problem. Not only this, such monitoring can help thrive the programs in future.
REFERENCES
1. Aguilar, M., & Rodríguez, R. (2012). Lecturer and student perceptions on CLIL at a Spanish university. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism , 15(2), 183-197.
2. Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications . WH Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.Armbruster, B. B. (1986). Schema theory and the design of content-area textbooks. Educational Psychologist, 21(4), 253-267.
3. Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (Vol. 79). Multilingual matters.
4. Brinton, D. M., M. A. Snow, & M. B. Wesche. (1989). Content-based Second Language Instruction. New York: Newbury House.
5. Brinton, D., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. (1989). Content-based second language instruction.Bruton, A. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System, 39(4), 523-532.
6. Catalán, R. M. J., & De Zarobe, Y. R. (2009). The receptive vocabulary of EFL learners in two instructional contexts: CLIL versus non-CLIL instruction.Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe, 81-92.
7. Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. J. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 251-269.
8. Coleman, J. A. (2006). English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language teaching, 39(01), 1-14.
9. Cammarata, L. (2010). Foreign language teachers' struggle to learn content-based instruction. L2 Journal, 2(1).
10. Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Caldas, S. J., & Boudreaux, N. (1999). Poverty, Race, and
11. Foreign Language Immersion: Predictors of Math and English Language Arts Performance. Learning Languages.
12. Cenoz, J. (2013). Discussion: Towards an educational perspective in CLIL language policy and pedagogical practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 389-394.
13. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2011). Focus on multilingualism: A study of trilingual writing. The Modern Language
Journal, 95(3), 356-369.
