CONTENT-BASED INSTRUCTION: A COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH FOR THE EFL CLASSROOM
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20319/pijtel.2018.23.6377Keywords:
CBI, Content-based Instruction, CLIL, Communicative Approach, Multiple Skills Practice, Classroom Applications, Fluency, Pair WorkAbstract
Content-Based Instruction (CBI)1 is a justifiably popular method in the ESL/EFL classroom because it combines the improvement of competency in a foreign language with the attainment of knowledge in various subjects that occur in academic curricula across the spectrum of higher education. CBI has two main focuses. One concentrates on imparting knowledge of a particular subject matter with a secondary goal of improving language ability. The other aims primarily at the improvement of communicative competence in the target language. The focus of this paper is on this second aspect. Here learners are first given content that provides a basic overview of a particular subject or current issue. They are then tasked with performing various classroom activities that promote proficiency in the target language through engaging with the subject matter. The great advantage of this format is that, in addition to improving students’ general knowledge about the world, practice in all four major skills is given in the course of a single lesson. Reading is enhanced when students research the topic to be addressed in class. Writing is practiced when students do timed essays, which not only improves their writing but also simulates writing done for language assessment tests such as the TOEFL and IELTS. Opportunities to improve listening and speaking come when students engage classmates in discussions about the topics addressed in class. This paper gives practical examples of how to implement such lessons in the EFL classroom as CBI continues to become more relevant now and into the future.
References
British Council. 2017. Communicative Approach. Accessed December 18. https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/communicative-approach
Brown, J.D. (2005). Testing in Language Programs. McGraw-Hill New York, NY.
Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why…and why not. System, 41. 587-597.
Castellano-Risco, I. (2018). Receptive Vocabulary and Learning Strategies in Secondary School CLIL and non-CLIL Learners. Onomazein, 40, 29-48.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2002). What it makes sense to teach grammar through context and through discourse. New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms, E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), 119-134. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Centre for Independent Language Learning (2003). Collocation. Retrieved from http://elc.polyu.edu.hk/advdicts/collocation.htm
Chang, S. & Zhu, N. (2018). 5:20:20:5 efficiency. PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education and Learning, 2(2), 12-19.
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doiz, A., D. Lasagabaster & J. M. Sierra (2014). CLIL and motivation: The effect of individual and contextual variables. Language Learning Journal 42, 209–224.
Ellis, N.C. (2002a). Frequency effects in language acquisition: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143-188.
Ellis, N.C. (2002b). Reflections on frequency effects in language acquisition: A response to commentaries. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 297-339.
Ellis, N.C. (2003). Words in mind and brain: Implications for vocabulary acquisition and instruction. Seminar on Vocabulary Acquisition at Temple University, Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan, January 25-26, 2003.
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of Instructed Language Learning. Asian EFL Journal, 7(3), 1-16.
Ibarrola, A.L. (2012). Faster and Further Morphosyntactic Development of CLIL vs. EFL Basque-Spanish Bilinguals Learning English in High-School. International Journal of English Studies, 12(1), 79-96.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.
Lamb, M. (2017). The motivational dimension of language teaching. Language Teaching, 50(3), 301-346.
Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2013). How Languages are Learned 4e (Oxford Handbooks for Language Teachers) (4th ed). Oxford, UK. Oxford University Press.
McDougald, J.S. (2016). CLIL Approaches in Education: Opportunities, Challenges, or Threats? Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 9(2), 253-266.
McWhorter, J. (1998). Word on the street: Debunking the myth of a “pure” standard English. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Masumi, A. (2018). Fostering Japanese students’ logical thinking to formulate a common understanding of logics between teachers and students. PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education and Learning, 2(1), 50-67.
Nation. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
Pace, M. (2017). Adapting literature to the language classroom. PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education and Learning, 1(1), 1-13.
Pinemann, M. (1985). Learnability and syllabus construction. In K. Hyltensam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition, 23-75. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10, 52-79.
Pinker, S. (2004). Why nature & nurture won't go away. Daedalus 133(4), 5-17.
Sajima, S. (2013). How CLIL can impact on efl teachers’ mindsets about teaching and learning: an exploratory study on teacher cognition. International CLIL Research Journal, 2 (1).
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smala, S. (2013). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) pedagogies in Queensland. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 8(3), 194–205
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. E. Hinkel (Ed.), 471–483. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thundercliff, M. (2015). IELTS Speaking: Part 1 – Fluency and Coherence. EFL Magazine August 5, 2015.
Van Patten, B. (2010). The Two Faces of SLA: Mental Representation and Skill. International Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 1-8.
Vázquez, B.M. (2014). Lexical transfer in the written production of a CLIL group and a non CLIL group. International Journal of English Studies, 14(2), 57-76.
Ward, C.S. & Gramer, M.F. (2014). Q: Skills for Success 3, Reading and Writing. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright of Published Articles
Author(s) retain the article copyright and publishing rights without any restrictions.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
