Content-Based L2 Teaching

doi:10.1017/9781108333603.026

25 - Content-Based L2 Teaching

from Part V - Pedagogical Interventions and Approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 June 2019

Hossein Nassaji and

Eva Kartchava

Edited by

John W. Schwieter and

Alessandro Benati

Show author details

John W. Schwieter: Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University
Alessandro Benati: Affiliation:
American University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

Book contents

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.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning , pp. 597 - 620
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333603.026 [Opens in a new window]
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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bruton, A. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System, 39, 523–532.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.