Content-Based Instruction (CBI)

It is a significant approach in language education (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 1989). CBI is
designed to provide second-language learners instruction in content and language.
Historically, the word content has changed its meaning in language teaching. Content
used to refer to the methods of grammar-translation, audio-lingual
methodology and vocabulary or sound patterns in dialog form. Recently, content is
interpreted as the use of subject matter as a vehicle for second or foreign language
teaching/learning.
Benefits of content based instruction
1. Learners are exposed to a considerable amount of language through stimulating
content. Learners explore interesting content & are engaged in appropriate languagedependent activities. Learning language becomes automatic.
2. CBI supports contextualized learning; learners are taught useful language that is
embedded within relevant discourse contexts rather than as isolated language fragments.
Hence students make greater connections with the language & what they already know.
3. Complex information is delivered through real life context for the students to grasp well
& leads to intrinsic motivation.
4. In CBI information is reiterated by strategically delivering information at right time &
situation compelling the students to learn out of passion.
5. Greater flexibility & adaptability in the curriculum can be deployed as per the student's
interest.
Motivating students
Keeping students motivated and interested are two important factors underlying contentbased instruction. Motivation and interest are crucial in supporting student success with
challenging, informative activities that support success and which help the
student learn complex skills (Grabe & Stoller, 1997). When students are motivated
and interested in the material they are learning, they make greater connections between
topics, elaborations with learning material and can recall information better (Alexander,
Kulikowich, & Jetton, 1994: Krapp, Hidi, & Renninger, 1992). In short, when a student
is intrinsically motivated the student achieves more. This in turn leads to a perception of
success, of gaining positive attributes which will continue a circular learning pattern of
success and interest. Krapp, Hidi and Renninger (1992) state that, "situational interest,
triggered by environmental factors, may evoke or contribute to the development of longlasting individual interests" (p. 18). Because CBI is student centered, one of its goals is to
keep students interested and motivation high by generating stimulating content
instruction and materials.
Active student involvement

Because it falls under the more general rubric of communicative language teaching (CLT),
the CBI classroom is learner rather than teacher centered (Littlewood, 1981). In such
classrooms, students learn through doing and are actively engaged in
the learning process. They do not depend on the teacher to direct all learning or to be the
source of all information. Central to CBI is the belief that learning occurs not only through
exposure to the teacher's input, but also through peer input and interactions. Accordingly,
students assume active, social roles in the classroom that involve interactive
learning, negotiation, information gathering and the co-construction of meaning (Lee and
VanPatten, 1995). William Glasser's "control theory" exemplifies his attempts to empower
students and give them voice by focusing on their basic, human needs: Unless students
are given power, they may exert what little power they have to thwart learning and
achievement through inappropriate behavior and mediocrity. Thus, it is important for
teachers to give students voice, especially in the current educational climate, which is
dominated by standardization and testing (Simmons and Page, 2010).[1]
Conclusion
The integration of language & content teaching is perceived by the European Commission
as "an excellent way of making progress in a foreign language". CBI effectively increases
learners' English language proficiency & teaches them the skills necessary for the success
in various professions. With CBI, learners gradually acquire greater control of the English
language, enabling them to participate more fully in an increasingly complex academic &
social environment.

Cooperative learning
Cooperative learning is an instructional method in which students work together in small,
heterogeneous groups to complete a problem, project, or other instructional goal, while
teachers act as guides or facilitators. This method works to reinforce a students own
learning as well as the learning of his or her fellow group members.

History of Cooperative Learning

The strategy of cooperative learning was developed as a means to reduce competition in
American schools, which James Coleman (1959) identified as a negative component of the
education system.1 In a two-year study of students at nine high schools in the Midwest, Coleman
developed what he called a climate of values for the adolescent society he studied. Based on
his findings, Coleman suggests that instead of encouraging competition in the academic setting,
which effectively impedes the process of education, schools should introduce a more
collaborative approach to teaching.
Building on the work of James Coleman, Robert Slavin (1994) conducted research on a form of
cooperative learning he described as Student Team Learning Slavin defines cooperative learning
as instructional programs in which students work in small groups to help one another master

academic content. Slavin suggests that cooperative learning has the potential to capitalize on
the developmental characteristics of adolescents in order to harness their peer orientation,
enthusiasm, activity, and craving for independence within a safe structure. Slavin explains that
there are various methods for implementing cooperative learning techniques into classes of all
subject areas and grade levels; however, the underlying concept requires all students to work
together and be responsible for each others learning.
Through his review of the literature on cooperative learning, Slavin identifies three concepts
that are fundamental to all cooperative learning/Student Team Learning techniques:

Students are rewarded as a team but are graded individually.

The teams success is not conditionally based on individual performance of one student. All
students must help each other to achieve learning goals.

All students are expected to improve based on their own previous performance, thus
ensuring all students are challenged to do their best
Daniel Holt, Barbara Chips, and Diane Wallace (1991) recognize the possible benefits of
cooperative learning in linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms. Holt, Chips, and Wallace
suggest that English Language Learners (ELL) need the maximum amount of time possible for
comprehending and using the English language in a low-risk environment in order to approach the
language proficiency of their peers. By utilizing cooperative learning groups, teachers offer ELLs
the opportunity to interact with students who are proficient in English language skills.
Furthermore, because ELLs are not usually provided with content-area classes taught in their
primary language, they often struggle with the difficult academic material. Cooperative learning
groups enable them to work in a team with other students who have already gained proficiency
with the language. This group dynamic not only provides a supportive environment for learning
new content and acquiring English language skills, but also helps to foster friendships and social
development.

Cooperative Learning in the Classroom

Teachers are often afraid to implement cooperative learning in the classroom because it requires
them to give up some control. However, this method of instruction has been shown to increase
student communication skills and academic achievement if done correctly. Here are tips for
effectively implementing cooperative learning into the instructional program.
Spencer Kagan (1989) recommends that teachers use the structural approach to
cooperative learning, which involves content-free ways of organizing social interaction in the
classroom. Kagan explains that structures require a series of steps to be implemented into the

group dynamic. Kagan lists well-known structures that have been successfully used in multiple
grade levels and subject areas9:

jigsaw

student teams achievement divisions

think-pair-share

numbered heads together

three-step interview

co-op

round robin

inside-outside circle

roundtable

T HE K EY ELE MENT S OF COOPERATI V E LEA RNI NG

The most commonly found characteristics of cooperative learning are:
Teacher supervision

the teacher should always monitor group activity to ensure that students are not veering too far
off task. The teacher should also be available to answer student questions and guide discussion if
necessary.
Heterogeneous

groupsthe teacher creates groups of diverse ability levels and backgrounds.

Positive
interdependenceby setting group goals and working towards a reward or final learning outcome.

Face-to-face

interactionstudents are encouraged to use verbal and nonverbal communication to solve

problems and explain learning material.
Individual

accountabilitystudents are accountable for their tasks and for assisting the whole group meets
learning goals. This accountability is enforced through student roles.
Social skillsthe

teacher needs to establish rules so that all students are respectful, speak in a manner appropriate
to the classroom setting, and utilize their time wisely during group interaction.
Group processing

students engage in reflection on how the group functioned during activity.

Evaluationall

activities should include both individual and group assessment.

The content-based approach to second language acquisition is a wellEstablished method among language instructors. The idea of increasing language
proficiency as the student takes a course in another academic discipline works
(Brinton, Snow and Wesche, 1989). The strength of the content-based method is
that language learning is contextualized and purposeful. The more language is
used in the pursuit of a specific goal, the sooner the language is acquired.
Language proficiency sneaks into the student's tool kit almost without noticing as
the student's interest in the content leads to language solutions. If we think of
computing as having a language of its own, then moving toward a content-based
approach to internet literacy is only a simple adjustment. This paper will briefly
discuss the philosophy underlying our content-based approach to internet literacy,
and provide extensive practical examples of its implementation.
The rationale for the content-based approach is reinforced by Anderson's
Cognitive theory of learning (1985) which posits two different kinds of knowledge:
declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge. Declarative knowledge is what a
person knows about, while procedural knowledge is what a person can do. The
content-based approach produces both declarative and procedural knowledge. The
student gains mastery of the language (procedural knowledge) and mastery of the
subject (declarative knowledge) simultaneously. Since internet literacy demands
procedural, not declarative, knowledge, the content-based approach should
produce internet skills just as it produces linguistic skills.
The content-based approach uses task-based teaching principles to provide
the learner with purposeful tasks, the mastery of an academic subject, and
repeated opportunities for meaningful communication. The key then to the
content-based approach is to increase students' procedural knowledge by

providing them the right tools (linguistic or internet) that they need to master their
academic tasks.

Competency based language teaching

It is based on a functional and interactional perspective on the nature of
language.It seeks to teach language in relation to the social context in which
it is used.
Language always occurs as a medium of interaction and
communication between people for the achievement of specific goals
and purposes.
It has for this reason most often been used as a framework for
language teaching in situations where learners have specific needs
and are in particular roles and where the language skills they need
can be fairly accurately predicted and determined.
CBLT is also built around the notion of communicative competence
and seeks to develop functional communication skills in learners.
These skills are generally described in only the most general terms,
however, rather than being linked to the performance of specific realworld tasks.
CBLT thus shares some features with Communicative Language
Teaching.