Content-based instruction (CBI) is a pedagogical approach used in the second/other language classroom that commits to addressing both language- and content-learning objectives. Scholars have found that, particularly in the planning stages, teachers struggle with achieving that balance (Donato, 2016; Lyster, 2007). This study examines world language (WL) teachers’ planning for CBI via these research questions: (1) When experienced teachers from traditional WL classroom contexts design CBI unit plans, what do these plans reveal about the pathways they take towards CBI in a traditional WL settings? (2) What broader challenges and opportunities related to using CBI in the traditional WL context are revealed? The data sources in this qualitative lesson analysis study are 36 unit plans developed as the final project for a graduate-level course on CBI in one US institution. The three investigators examined the content–language dichotomy and the academic content-cultural content dichotomy in each lesson and identified patterns. The findings reveal that teachers often chose content that was more cultural than academic in nature, and they were challenged by several aspects of relating the language and content objectives. Implications for researchers, teacher educators, and teachers present a broader discussion of CBI as a viable curricular option in WL classrooms.
AguilarM.RodríguezR. (2012). Lecturer and student perceptions on CLIL at a Spanish university. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15, 183–197.
2.
AlejoR.Piquer PírizA. (2010). CLIL teacher training in Extremadura: A needs analysis perspective. In LasagabasterD.Ruiz de ZarobeY. (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training (pp. 219–242). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
3.
BaecherL.FarnsworthT.EdigerA. (2014). The challenges of planning language objectives in content-based ESL instruction. Language Teaching Research, 18, 118–136.
4.
BigelowM. (2010). Learning to plan for a focus on form in CBI: The role of teacher knowledge and teaching context. In DavisJ.F. (Ed.), World language teacher education: Transitions and challenges in the twenty-first century (pp. 35–56). New York: Information Age Publishing.
5.
BigelowM.RanneyS.DahlmanA. (2006). Keeping the language focus in content-based ESL instruction through proactive curriculum planning. TESL Canada Journal, 24, 40–58.
6.
CammarataL. (2009). Negotiating curricular transitions: Foreign language teachers’ learning experience with content-based instruction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65, 559–585.
7.
CammarataL. (2016). Foreign language education and the development of inquiry-driven language programs. In CammarataL. (Ed.), Content-based foreign language teaching: Curriculum and pedagogy for developing advanced thinking and literacy skills (pp. 123–146). New York: Routledge.
8.
CammarataL.TedickD.J. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 251–269.
9.
Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA) (2006). Content-Based Language Learning with Technology (CoBaLTT). Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota. Available at: http://carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/index.html (accessed August 2018).
10.
CrandallJ.TuckerG.R. (1990) Content-based instruction in second and foreign languages. In PadillaA.FairchildH.H.ValadezC. (Eds.), Foreign language education: Issues and strategies (pp. 187–200). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
11.
DonatoR. (2016). Sociocultural theory and content-based foreign language instruction. In CammarataL. (Ed.), Content-based foreign language teaching: Curriculum and pedagogy for developing advanced thinking and literacy skills (pp. 25–50). New York: Routledge.
12.
FerrellB. (1992). Lesson plan analysis as a program evaluation tool. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 23–26.
13.
GeneseeF. (1994). Integrating language and content: Lessons from immersion. Educational Practice Reports No. 11, National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
14.
GrayS. (2009). From principles to practice: Teachers’ uptake of principles from instructed language learning to plan a focus on language form in content lessons. System, 37, 570–584.
15.
JacobsC.L.MartinS.N.OtienoT.C. (2008). A science lesson plan analysis instrument for formative and summative program evaluation of a teacher education program. Science Education, 92, 1096–1126.
16.
JohnsonK.E. (2015). Reclaiming the relevance of L2 teacher education. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 515–528.
17.
LysterR. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
18.
LysterR.MoriH. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300.
19.
MartelJ. (2016). Three foreign language student teachers’ experiences with content-based instruction: Exploring the identity/innovation interface. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. Electronic publication ahead of print version. Published online: 26 July 2016 (doi: 10.1080/17501229.2016.1211134).
20.
MagnanS.S.MurphyD.SahakyanN.KimS. (2012). Student goals, expectations, and the standards for foreign language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 45, 170–192.
21.
MetM. (1999). Content-based instruction: Defining terms, making decisions. Washington, DC: The National Foreign Language Center.
22.
National Coalition for Core Arts Standards. (2014). National core arts standards. National Coalition for Core Arts Standards. Available at: https://www.nationalartsstandards.org (accessed August 2018).
23.
National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project (NSFLEP). (2015). World-readiness standards for learning language (W-RSLL). Alexandria, VA: NSFLEP.
24.
PessoaS.HendryH.DonatoR.TuckerG.R.LeeH. (2007) Content-based instruction in the foreign language classroom: A discourse perspective. Foreign Language Annals, 40, 102–121.
25.
PhillipsJ.AbbottM. (2011). A decade of foreign language standards: Influence, impact, and future directions. Alexandria, VA: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
26.
PosnerG.J. (1995). Analyzing the curriculum. 2nd edition.New York: McGraw Hill.
27.
RichardsJ.C.RodgersT.S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28.
SatoS.HasegawaA.KumagaiY.KamiyoshiU. (2017). Content-based instruction for the social future: A recommendation for critical content-based language instruction (CCBI). L2 Journal, 9, 50–69.
29.
SchönD.A. (1987). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
30.
ShulmanL.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.
31.
TedickD.CammarataL. (2012). Content and language Integration in K-12 contexts: Student outcomes, teacher practices, and stakeholder perspectives. Foreign Language Annals, 45, S28–S53.
32.
TroyanF.J. (2012). Standards for foreign language learning: Defining the constructs and researching learner outcomes. Foreign Language Annals, 45, S118–S140.
33.
TroyanF.J.CammarataL.MartelJ. (2017). Integration PCK: Modeling the knowledge(s) underlying a world language teacher’s implementation of CBI. Foreign Language Annals, 50, 458–476.
