Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T18:42:26.970Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

25 - Content-Based L2 Teaching

from Part V - Pedagogical Interventions and Approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2019

By
Hossein Nassaji  and
Eva Kartchava
Edited by
John W. Schwieter  and
Alessandro Benati
John W. Schwieter
Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University
Alessandro Benati
Affiliation:
American University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
Get access

Summary

The focus of this chapter is content-based language teaching (CBLT), a type of instruction that combines the teaching of academic subjects (such as maths, science, and history) and second or additional language (L2) learning. This “two for one” pedagogical approach aims to integrate content and language by providing learners with opportunities to use their developing L2 as they advance their understanding of a particular discipline. Although CBLT emphasizes the use of content, research suggests that L2 success in content-based classrooms depends, among other things, on the degree to which instruction provides opportunities not only for content-focused communication but also for attention to linguistic forms. In this respect, there are different models of content-based approaches, which differ from one another in the degree to which they focus on content versus form.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning , pp. 597 - 620
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnau, J., & Vila, F. X. (2013). Language-in-education policies in the Catalan language area. In Arnau, J. (ed.), Reviving Catalan at school: Challenges and instructional approaches (pp. 1–28). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Baecher, L., Farnsworth, T., & Ediger, A. (2014). The challenges of planning language objectives in content-based ESL instruction. Language Teaching Research, 18, 118–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (3rd edn.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ballinger, S. (2013). Towards a cross-linguistic pedagogy: Biliteracy and reciprocal learning strategies in French immersion. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1, 131–148.Google Scholar
Ballinger, S., & Lyster, R. (2011). Student and teacher oral language use in a two-way Spanish/English immersion school. Language Teaching Research, 15, 289–306.Google Scholar
Bekerman, Z. (2005). Complex contexts and ideologies: Bilingual education in conflict-ridden areas. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 4, 1–20.Google Scholar
Bjötklund, S., Mard-Miettinen, K., & Savijärvi, M. (2013). Swedish immersion in the early years in Finland. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17(2), 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruton, A. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System, 39, 523–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why … and why not. System, 41, 587–597.Google Scholar
Budach, G. (2009). Multilingual education in Germany: Discourses, practices and experiences in two-way immersion. In Torres-Guzman, M. E. & Gomez, J. (eds.), Global perspectives on multilingualism: Unity in diversity (pp. 106–133). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Cammarata, L. (2009). Negotiating curricular transitions: Foreign language teachers’ learning experience with content-based instruction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65, 559–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. J. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 251–269.Google Scholar
Cenoz, J. (2008). Achievements and the challenges in bilingual and multilingual education in the Basque Country. AILA Review, 21, 13–30.Google Scholar
Chen, Y., Yang, T., & Chen, H. L. (2017). Challenges encountered in a Chinese immersion program in the United States. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 26, 163–170.Google Scholar
Cohen, A., & Swain, M. (1976). Bilingual education: The “immersion” model in the North American context. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 45–53.Google Scholar
Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 543–562.Google Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, J. (1983). Language proficiency, biliteracy and French immersion. Canadian Journal of Education, 8, 117–138.Google Scholar
Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education: Aspects of theory, research and practice. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe. In Delanoy, D. W. & Volkmann, L. (eds.), In future perspectives for English language teaching (pp. 139–157). Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204.Google Scholar
Day, E., & Shapson, S. (1991). Integrating formal and functional approaches to language teaching in French immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning, 41, 25–58.Google Scholar
De Jong, E. J., & Bearse, C. I. (2011). The same outcomes for all? High school students reflect on their two-way immersion program experiences. In Tedick, D. K., Christian, D., & Fortune, T. W. (eds.), Immersion education: Practices, policies, possibilities (pp. 104–122). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
De Jong, E. J., & Bearse, C. I. (2014). Dual language programs as a strand within a secondary school: Dilemmas of school organization and the TWI mission. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17(1), 15–31.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51, 1–46.Google Scholar
Fotos, S. (1993). Consciousness-raising and noticing through focus on form—Grammar task-performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14, 385–407.Google Scholar
Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605–628.Google Scholar
Fotos, S., & Nassaji, H. (eds.) (2007). Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honour of Rod Ellis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. (1988). Sheltered English instruction. Eric digest. Retrieved from https://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9210/english.htm.Google Scholar
Genesee, F. (1978). A longitudinal evaluation of an early immersion school program. Canadian Journal of Education, 3(4), 31–50.Google Scholar
Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies in immersion and bilingual education. New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Genesee, F. (2004). What do we know about bilingual education for majority language students? In Bhatia, G. T. K. & Ritchie, W. (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism (pp. 547–576). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Genesee, F. (2007). French immersion and at-risk students: A review of research evidence. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 655–687.Google Scholar
Genesee, F., & Jared, D. (2008). Literacy development in early French immersion programs. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49, 140–147.Google Scholar
Genesee, F., & Stanley, M. (1976). The development of English writing skills in French immersion school programs. Canadian Journal of Education, 1, 1–17.Google Scholar
Grim, F. (2008). Integrating focus on form in L2 content-enriched instruction lessons. Foreign Language Annals, 41, 321–346.Google Scholar
Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics, 10, 331–359.Google Scholar
Harley, B. (1991). Directions in immersion research. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 12, 9–19.Google Scholar
Harley, B. (1993). Instructional strategies and SLA in early French immersion. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, B. (1998). The role of focus on form in promoting child L2 acquisition. In Doughty, C. & William, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp. 156–174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harley, B., & Swain, M. (1984). The interlanguage of immersion students and its implications for second language teaching. In Davies, A., Criper, C., & Howatt, A. P. R. (eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 291–311). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Harrop, E. (2012). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Limitations and possibilities. Encuentro, 21, 57–70.Google Scholar
Hickey, T. (2001). Mixing beginners and native speakers in minority language immersion: Who is immersing whom? Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 443–474.Google Scholar
Hoare, P., & Kong, S. (2008). Late immersion in Hong Kong: Still stressed but making progress? In Fortune, T. W. & Tedick, D. J. (eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Emerging perspectives on immersion education (pp. 242–263). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J., & Christian, D. (2003). Trends in two-way immersion education. A review of the research. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. K., & Swain, M. (eds.) (1997). Immersion education: International perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klee, C. A., & Tedick, D. J. (1997). The undergraduate foreign language immersion program in Spanish at the University of Minnesota. In Stryker, S. B. & Leaver, B. L. (eds.), Content-based instruction in foreign language education: Models and methods (pp. 141–173). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73–93.Google Scholar
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1997). From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote it in the immersion classroom? In Johnson, R. K. & Swain, M. (eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 284–309). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1972). Bilingual education of children: The St. Lambert experiment. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Lapkin, S., Hart, D., & Swain, M. (1991). Early and middle French immersion programs—French-language outcomes. Canadian Modern Language Review, 48, 11–40.Google Scholar
Lapkin, S., & Swain, M. (2000). Task outcomes: A focus on immersion students’ use of pronominal verbs in their writing. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3, 7–22.Google Scholar
Lapkin, S., & Swain, M. (2004). What underlies immersion students’ production: The case of “avoir besoin de”. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 349–355.Google Scholar
Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Smith, M. (2002). Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 485–507.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1, 30–41.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64, 367–375.Google Scholar
Lazaruk, W. (2007). Linguistic, academic, and cognitive benefits of French immersion. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 605–627.Google Scholar
Leeman, J., Arteagoitia, I., Fridman, B., & Doughty, C. (1995). Integrating attention to form with meaning: Focus on form in content-based Spanish instruction. In Schmidt, R. (ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language (pp. 217–258). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. (2014). Focus on content-based language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429–448.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lim Falk, M. (2008). Svenska i engelskspråkig skolmiljö: Ämnesrelaterat språkbruk i två gymnasieklasser [Swedish in an English-speaking school context: Subject-related language use in two upper secondary classes]. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Lindholm-Leary, K. (2001). Dual language education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lindholm-Leary, K. (2011). Student outcomes in Chinese two-way immersion programs: Language proficiency, academic achievement and student attitudes. In Tedick, D. J., Christian, D., & Fortune, T. W. (eds.), Immersion education: Practices, policies, possibilities (pp. 81–103). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (2017). Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In DeBot, K., Ginsberge, R., & Kramsch, C. (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Luning, R., & Yamauchi, L. (2010). The influences of indigenous heritage language education on students and families in a Hawaiian language immersion program. Heritage Language Journal, 7, 46–74.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15, 263–287.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998a). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998b). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004a). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004b). Research on form-focused instruction in immersion classrooms: Implications for theory and practice. Journal of French Language Studies, 14, 321–341.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2017). Content-based language teaching. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 87–107). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.Google Scholar
Merino, J., & Lasagabaster, D. (2018). The effect of content and language integrated learning programmes’ intensity on English proficiency: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28, 18–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musumeci, D. (1996). Teacher–learner negotiation in content-based instruction: Communication at cross-purposes? Applied Linguistics, 17, 286–325.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2015). Interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2016). Anniversary article: Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20, 535–562.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126–145.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2010). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Navés, T. (2009). Effective content and language integrated learning (CLIL) programmes. In Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. & Jimenez Catalan, R. M. (eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 22–40). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Netten, J., & Germain, C. (2004). Theoretical and research foundations of intensive French. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 275–294.Google Scholar
Netten, J., & Germain, C. (2009). The future of intensive French in Canada. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65, 757–786.Google Scholar
Nikula, T., & Dafouz, E. (2016). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ó Baoill, D. (2007). Origins of Irish-medium education: The dynamic core of language revitalization in Northern Ireland. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 410–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15, 315–341.Google Scholar
Pérez Cañado, M. L., & Lancaster, N. K. (2017). The effects of CLIL on oral comprehension and production: A longitudinal case study. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 30, 300–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peter, L. (2014). Language ideologies and Cherokee revitalization: Impracticality, legitimacy, and hope. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2, 96–118.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners? The Modern Language Journal, 86, 1–19.Google Scholar
Pladevall-Ballester, E., & Vallbona, A. (2016). CLIL in minimal input contexts: A longitudinal study of primary school learners’ receptive skills. System, 58, 37–48.Google Scholar
Reedy, T. (2000). Te Reo Maori: The past 20 years and looking forward. Oceanic Linguistics, 39, 157–169.Google Scholar
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge: Cambridge Univesity Press.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2010). Written production and CLIL: An empirical study. In Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 191–209). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 29, 1–15.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42, 181–207.Google Scholar
Stern, H. (1978). French immersion in Canada: Achievements and directions. Canadian Modern Language Review, 34, 836–854.Google Scholar
Stoller, F., & Grabe, W. (1997). A six-T’s approach to content-based instruction. In Snow, M. A. & Brinton, D. M. (eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 78–94). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Stryker, S. B., & Leaver, B. L. (eds.) (1997). Content-based instruction in foreign language education: Models and methods. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1974). French immersion programs across Canada: Research findings. Canadian Modern Language Review, 31, 117–129.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some rules of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1993). The Output Hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2000). French immersion research in Canada: Recent contributions to SLA and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 199–212.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1982). Evaluating bilingual education: A Canadian case study. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.Google Scholar
Sylvén, L. K. (2013). CLIL in Sweden—why does it not work? A metaperspective on CLIL across contexts in Europe. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 301–320.Google Scholar
Turnbull, M., Lapkin, S., & Hart, D. (2001). Grade 3 immersion students’ performance in literacy and mathematics: Province-wide results from Ontario (1998–99). Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 9–26.Google Scholar
Valeo, A. (2013). The integration of language and content: Form-focused instruction in a content-based language program. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16, 25–50.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing Instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755–803.Google Scholar
Washburn, L. (1997). English immersion in Sweden: A case study of Röllingby high school, 1987–1989. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Wesche, M. (2001). Editorial: French immersion and content-based language teaching in Canada. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 1–8.Google Scholar
Whittaker, R., Llinares, A., & McCabe, A. (2011). Written discourse development in CLIL at secondary school. Language Teaching Research, 15, 343–362.Google Scholar
Zyzik, E., & Polio, C. (2008). Incidental focus on form in university Spanish literature courses. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 53–70.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×