EJAL Article template

Focus on ELT Journal

Vol 2, Issue 2, 2020

ISSN: 2687-5381


Contact: ferhat.karanfil@yahoo.com

Content-based instruction (CBI) challenges in Turkey: Voices of high

school students

aFerhat Karanfil
a

PhD Candidate, Bahçeşehir University, Turkey, ferhat.karanfil@yahoo.com

APA Citation: Karanfil, F. (2020). Content-based instruction (CBI) challenges in Turkey: Voices of high

school students. Focus on ELT Journal, 2(2), 4-16. https://doi.org/10.14744/felt.2020.00023

ABSTRACT

CBI is gaining popularity all over the world and in Turkey. We hear more

about it as the International Baccalaureate are becoming popular. There is void

in literature about CBI and high school as most studies are done in tertiary

context. The current study is mixed-method research with the participants from

high schools in Turkey. The findings of the current study have shown that

language and content integration provide high school students with a clear and

relevant learning background. When language is a key to substantive

interactions, events have real intent and involve a sincere exchange of

meaning. The themed learning helps students to strengthen their reading and

writing skills as they can create schemes during the course and can adapt

existing schemes to new learning situations. CBI also found to be a source of

motivation for learners to use the language in an authentic context.

Keywords

Content-based instruction;

English Language teaching;

high school school;

IB schools;

DP programme

Article History

Received : 10 September 2020

Revised : 16 November 2020

Accepted : 22 November 2020

Published : 30 December 2020

Introduction

As with the rapid developments in science and other disciplines, the educational trend is

moving towards using English as a way for communication and to create a shared basis.

More and more students are now studying their courses in English as a Medium of

Instruction (EMI universities and in order to prepare to students for tertiary education,

content courses (Science, Mathematics, Social studies) are thought in English at high

schools. There are different programs such as DP (Diploma Programme) of International

Baccalaureate and an increasing number of students join these programmes nowadays. No

study, to our knowledge, has ever investigated challenges that high school students face

while learning content in English. This research paper deals with the data gathered from

students to understand their feelings regarding Content-Based Instruction and the findings

may help teachers to understand the problems they experience, and teachers could better

suit the courses to students’ needs and thus turning the challenges into learning

opportunities.

mailto:ferhat.karanfil@yahoo.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4767-8623
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4767-8623
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4767-8623
mailto:ferhat.karanfil@yahoo.com
https://doi.org/10.14744/felt.2020.00023

Karanfil, F. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2020 2(2) 18

Focus on ELT

www.focusonelt.com

History of teaching content in Language Education

Throughout history, languages have changed along with the changes in the lifestyles of

communities they belong to. Some languages emerged out of the communities they were

utilised and began to be learned and utilised across nations due to political implications,

and domination of other countries as well as the use of the language for trade and science

(Ostler, 2005). This situation necessitated foreign language education across generations.

Foreign language education had a long history which dates back to ancient times. Starting

in the earliest periods of human history, the practice of teaching, and learning a foreign

language was common as several languages had the lingua franca status. In the period

between ancient times through the beginning of medieval ages, in language education, the

focus was merely on content. In this long history of language learning, the content used in

learning the language has always been significant. The fundamental tool to learn the

language was the very books the scholars had to excel in. The only forms of learning

materials students of intended language could use in the way of classic texts, religious texts

such as the Quran and Bible, and other scientific reference sources because the primary

reason of learners was to make a scholarly understanding of the intended text rather than

conversing in the target language. Latin was the prerequisite for scholars of ancient, and

medieval periods in Europe as it was “the language of instruction” (Dalton-Puffer, 2007,

p.2). Therefore, some effort was made to determine the vocabulary and master the

grammatical forms found in the text. Thus, it can be stated that language teaching at an

early age was content-oriented. The content had also been an area in which language

learners immersed themselves in various grammatical subjects and tried to discover the

vocabulary.

In the grammar-translation method, the content was the source of grammar rules and

forms. Then with the audio-lingual method content was mostly dialogue which this time

along with grammar patterns also included vocabulary and sound patterns, and finally, with

the communicative methods, the content was the place where we can find examples of

communication (Tedick, 2018). Dalton-Puffer (2011) describe the emergence of Content-

based Instruction (CBI) as a language approach in first language education in language

across the curriculum movement. Widdowson (1978) was one of the first to propose that

language and content can be integrated and emphasized the importance of content in

communication. It can be said that although some approaches adopted the use of content in

language teaching by the 1960s, the term content-based instruction wasn’t into use until the

late 1980s. The first implementation of CBI in the education field took place in Canada in

immersion classes. From that time on, the application areas of CBI have gone to age and

school diversity (Larsen-Freeman, 2005). Moreover, Murphey (1997) states that “CBI in

the EFL (English as a foreign language) context is an exciting endeavour well worth the

doing and well worth improving” (as cited in Moriyoshi, 2010, p.6); it was accepted both

by researchers and teachers in the field as a trusted approach effective in the teaching of a

language.

Defining Content-Based instruction

Many definitions are formed by scholars to describe the CBI. Initially, Krahnke (1987)

defined it as that “the teaching of content or information in the language being learned with

little or no direct or explicit effort to teach the language itself separately from the content

being taught” (p. 66). One of the first definitions that emphasized the teaching of a subject

Karanfil, F. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2020 2(2) 19

Focus on ELT

www.focusonelt.com

matter along with second language teaching was made by Brinton et al. (1989). In their

definition, they emphasized “concurrent” teaching of language and the subject (16). These

definitions changed form with the developments in language education. The use of CBI in

a wide range of applications from different educational levels to the teaching of academic

skills necessitated different definitions. This caused CBI to become a domain rooting many

branches with various applications all over the world. To illustrate this phenomenon,

Stoller (2008) defined CBI as ‘an umbrella term’ for approaches with varying degrees of

emphasis on content or language.

Different models of Content-based instruction

Three "primary models of CBI " was first introduced by Brinton et al. (1989). These were

sheltered instruction, adjunct introduction, and theme-based instruction. CBI has five

models in total even though three of them are more common in language education

especially at the tertiary level: theme-based, adjunct, and sheltered model (Unirow, 2012).

Sheltered content instruction

Sheltered programs are, in many ways, similar to immersion programs. The audience of the

courses are L2 speakers, but the most crucial point that the two models differed is the

course hours. In the sheltered program, there is a weekly three-hour program, while

immersion programs can cover half of the students' whole education programs (Johnson &

Swain, 1997). In sheltered instruction, the audience is the students who still continue their

L2 education and development and in their general education environment, they are

together with native speaker students who speak their L2. The keyword in this model is

“sheltering” or “separation”. Several studies showed that sheltered content instruction

program proved successful in many settings (Brinton & Snow, 2017).

Adjunct Model

Language and content courses are held together in the adjunct instruction. They are called

paired courses as well. The language course's goal was to complement the content course's

teaching. In comparison to the sheltered teaching, in the content course, L2 students are not

segregated from native speaker students and students from both groups that take part in the

content course. The language level of content in this type of instruction is higher than the

level of sheltered courses. The aim of the training is to enhance the student's language

acquisition with a higher level of English content and academic instruction in the

participation of the content course. In this type of instruction, the language level of content

is higher than that of sheltered courses. The training aims to improve the language

acquisition of the student with a higher level of English content and accompanying

academic instruction in the language course (Brinton et al., 1989).

Theme Based Model

According to Satılmış et al. (2015), theme-based instruction is the most popular, and

widely utilised CBI model in educational contexts in which it takes place due to its lack of

complexity for implementation. The major principle of theme-based language instruction is

that the content and language skills are shaped around particular themes and topics (Tsai &

Karanfil, F. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2020 2(2) 20

Focus on ELT

www.focusonelt.com

Shang, 2010). The ultimate goal of the theme-based language course is to improve

students’ second language competence through specific topic areas. Interesting topics that

are based on student needs and cognitive and academic interests, especially about social

issues, are included in course content, and around these topics; various language tasks are

implemented (Siqi, 2017). Thus, theme-based language instruction might be categorized

into student-centered pedagogy by forming the course content according to students’ needs

and experiences which can satisfy both their language competence and tastes. In students-

centered teaching, students are expected to actively participate in classroom activities to

explore knowledge. In student-centered instruction, the role of language teachers has also

shifted towards a facilitator or coordinator to integrate topics related to a specific content

area (Kızıltan & Ersanh, 2007). Some brief information about the practices in Turkey will

be offered in the following chapter.

CBI practices in Turkey

The research in Turkey mainly focused on CLIL (Content and language integrated

learning) and EMI in tertiary settings. In Turkey, Arslan and Saka (2010) investigated the

effect of CBI on a group of science students at a preparatory school. They found that

students feel positive towards CBI since it increased their motivation as they improved

their academic knowledge. They reported that CBI is appropriate for preparatory school

students as it meets their language needs providing them with necessary academic

language skills. However, neither this study nor the others addressed the challenges the

students are facing in high schools.

Similarly, at the tertiary level, Er (2011) investigated the perceptions of instructors

towards CBI in a state university in Turkey in which CBI is used by some instructors. The

results showed controversy in the answers of instructors with reasons behind each. İlhan

and Kayabaşı (2014) also researched in order to examine the effect of CBI on students’

academic achievement in language skills and knowledge related to their subject area.

According to the results, there was an increase in the students’ academic achievement in

language skills and content knowledge. Likewise, Satılmış et al., (2015) conducted a study

to see whether CBI is an effective strategy to teach students the required language skills

and content knowledge of the academic subject. According to the results, content

knowledge and language skills can be effectively taught to students through CBI.

Figure 1. Snow and Brinton's (2017) Updated Map of CBI Models

Karanfil, F. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2020 2(2) 21

Focus on ELT

www.focusonelt.com

CBI related issues

Like other teaching methods, CBI is not without issues. In countries such as Canada

and the USA, the popularity of CBI has risen dramatically due to the growing population

of non-English-speaking migrants into English speaking countries (Dalton & Puffer, 2007).

However, the proficiency level of English is a concern both for learners and teachers. Fujii

(2000) found in this study that students with higher proficiency levels reacted more

positively towards the CBI since they had the necessary skills and learning strategies to

handle the cognitive load of the CBI courses. Conversely, learners with a low level of

English proficiency will experience difficulties. The language proficiency of lecturers was

studied in the study of Dimova and Kling (2018) despite awareness of their lack of

nuanced vocabulary, lecturers’ content knowledge and teaching experience facilitate their

language performance. Soruc and Griffiths (2017) researched EMI tertiary setting at a

Turkish university and found out that students have difficulties related to speaking and

listening, teacher and class, and how they deal with these issues were explained in their

study. The current study will shed light on issues experienced in high schools in CBI

classrooms.

Research Methodology

The current research is a mixed-method inquiry utilizing a mixed-method approach to

gather both qualitative and quantitative data (Piano-Clark & Creswell, 2008). A Likert

scale questionnaire was administered to participant high school students and five voluntary

students were interviewed and voice -recorded upon informed-consent form.

Context

As the expectations were increasing from private schools gradually, some private schools

now use a unique curriculum that prepares the students to study abroad where the medium

of instruction is English. As a result of the current changes, the IBO (International

Baccalaureate Organization and Cambridge IGCSE (International General Certificate of

Secondary Education) program schools are becoming popular among parents. They are

willing to pay higher school fees or donate generously to get their children into bilingual

schools (Feng, 2005). In Turkey’s Education Vision 2023 (2019) that different disciplines,

such as mathematics, natural sciences, social sciences, and the visual arts, will be

integrated with English language education so that students can use the foreign language in

various fields. The CIE’s IGCSE and IB’s DP are the most popular curricular programs at

junior and high school levels, respectively. As the oldest of the international programs, DP

has established itself as the premium university preparatory curriculum for students in

Grades 11 and 12 (Hayden, 2006). Schools need to give a critical decision on the program

that would best prepare students for the rigour of the DP (Çorlu, 2014). In Turkey, more

and more schools are trying the get authorization from IBO and similar education bodies to

be a credible institution in their cities.

Karanfil, F. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2020 2(2) 22

Focus on ELT

www.focusonelt.com

Participants

The management of two schools and their teachers accepted to take part in the study.

Although more than twenty schools were contacted, only two schools agreed to participate

voluntarily. They all wanted permission document from the governorship, but it took some

time to apply to these documents and contact the state schools. Three students from the

private school and two students from the state school were interviewed. In total 121

students completed the survey; six surveys were excluded from the study as they only

choose one option, or many missing values are found in their data. The data of 115 surveys

and six interviews (two from a state high school and four are from private high schools

were reported in the findings part.

Data collection

The researcher visited the schools and explained the procedures and the instrument about

CBI to English teachers. He did not visit the classes; the English teachers helped the

students to complete the questionnaires. Each school was given two weeks to complete the

questionnaires. The survey included 22 items with a 5 -point Likert scale. The survey has

four subscales; their names are issues related to homework, teacher, learning strategies,

and programme. The themes were gathered from the semi-structured interviews.

Interviews were not recorded, but some notes were taken during the interview in the

private school, but in the state school, the permission guaranteed that the researcher would

not record voice or video. The statistical analysis revealed that the Cronbach Alpha

reliability coefficient of the questionnaire was over .70 which pointed out to the high

internal consistency of the items. The voluntary students respond to the surveys which

were given pen and paper with demographic information and 22 items of five-point Likert

scale which describe the high school students' challenges while studying the content

lessons in English.

Data Analysis

Interrater reliability and consistency checks were done with an English teacher with M.A

in ELT on the qualitative data. However, to summarise the quantitative data that is

collected from the written instrument were analysed by SPSS 23 (Statistical Package for

Social Sciences) and the data on the SPSS were compatible with the AMOS, so the

researcher was able to check the factor analysis of the item and the patterns of a normal

distribution is found in the current data.

Results

The researcher first deals with the demographic information of the data set. One of the

significant findings was that in state school students (N=34) at this prestigious school

studied in private schools either in primary or secondary schools. This may tell us private

schools are chosen by parents because of the exam success they have.

When the factor teacher was analysed using a one-sample test, the results in the table

below were found. The items were; a) When the teacher thought me, the application of

knowledge in a practical way, I become happy. b) I love teachers who cooperate with us

when they face language problems while teaching c) I observe that some teachers try to do

Karanfil, F. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2020 2(2) 23

Focus on ELT

www.focusonelt.com

translation while they are training us. d) When my teacher is angry, I have difficulties in

understanding him or her.

Table 1. T-test results for attitudes towards the CBI teachers

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference M SD

Std. Error

Mean

application 4,21 1,12 ,10537 40,024 ,000 4,21739

Language issues 3,46 1,17 ,11000 31,540 ,000 3,46957

Translation in

mind

3,25 1,33011 ,12403 26,220 ,000 3,25217

Teachers’ mood 2,09 1,35707 ,12655 16,560 ,000 2,09565

The findings suggest that when the teacher teaches the application of knowledge in

Science and Maths lessons, students feel happy. (M = 4.21, SD = 1.129), t (115) = 40.02, p

= .001.). The result indicates that students want to learn how knowledge is utilized in the

real world. Another finding is that the students prefer the content-teachers who cooperate

with them in their language problems. (M = 3.46, SD = 1.179), t (115) = 31.54, p = .001).

When the researcher visited the schools, the administrators gave information about the

difficulty of finding content teachers with language proficiency. Tedick, Christian and
Fortune (2011) stress that teachers undergo "generic" teacher instruction, but not CBI

content-specific information and skills. There should be more CPD opportunities for CBI

teachers to collaborate and discuss the bilingual identity of their learners and ways of

dealing with it.

The "three dimensions of language proficiency" were defined by Cummins (1996,

p.64). Social language is the first dimension; discrete language abilities including sound-

symbol relationships are the second dimension, and academic language is the third

dimension. Clearly, in order to be prepared to work with ELLs, educators need an

understanding of the scope and ability growth involved in SLA. The content teacher may

have an academic language to study the content i.e. cognitive/academic language

proficiency (CALP). However, it takes approximately one to two years for a student or

teachers to develop BICS (Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills) (Cummins, 1996).

We might infer that both content and English teachers should be the right level of BICS

and CALP in order to address the needs of students. We can infer that being bilingual in

other majors (Maths, Visual Arts, Information Technology in Global Society) will help

teachers to be realized and employed in private schools and have the right to work in

prestigious state schools. In the last part of the survey, students were asked to make

comments about the teachers and the lessons, surprisingly in the private school 91.8 % of

the students expressed Biology as the most difficult subject but in the state school, most

students expressed that the most difficult lesson is TOK (Theory of knowledge) or English

“Studying Biology is nothing different from History, it is full of unfamiliar concepts, and

understanding the text and producing something out of it is a challenge.” (Private School Student

2 / Data recorded 10 December 2019

“The most difficult lesson is TOK and literature for sure. As I studied in a state school, we

were never asked to state our opinions in any course. In reaction essays, we need to

Karanfil, F. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2020 2(2) 24

Focus on ELT

www.focusonelt.com

synthesise the information with our views, it is complicated for us.” (State school students 1

/data recorded on 20 December 2019

From what is expressed by the students in the interviews also in the survey, what

makes a lesson achievable or not is the teacher. These students study the same curricula

and same books in different schools but their perceptions towards some courses are totally

different and this difference might stem from the course instructors and emotions he or she

creates in the lesson. Ebata (2009) asserted the content has an effective impact on students’

cognitive abilities when they are learning a language or studying the content and teachers

also have such a critical role.

When the researcher examined the students’ views with one way- ANOVA, it was

found that out that assignments that prepare the students themselves for the exit tests are

favoured by the students. (M=4.04). The question that has the lowest mean in this subscale

was (I have difficulty in understanding what is expected from me in the assignments), the

mean score for this question was 2.06 so we might infer that students often understand

what is expected from them, but they sometimes have issues in catching up the deadline

calendars.

Table 2. The views regarding assignments using one way -ANOVA

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Abstract topics 115 3,017 1,221 ,1138

Assignments 115 4,043 1,223 ,1141

Expectations in

homework

115 2,060 1,208 ,1127

Submission issues 115 2,530 1,384 ,1291

Students in the current study mentioned they enjoy writing abstract essays, at first it

was a challenge,

“I enjoy studying courses in English, we write both write along in a shred of

evidence and finding, we are expected to write about highly abstract topics.”

(Private School Student 2 / Data recorded 10 December 2019)

Table 3. Pearson correlation between in writing abstract topics and the assignments that prepare them for the

DP exams

Correlations

Abstract topics Assignments

Abstract topics Pearson

Correlation

1 ,088

Sig. (1-tailed)

,176

N 115 115

Assignments Pearson

Correlation

,088 1

Sig. (1-tailed) ,176

N 115 115

Karanfil, F. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2020 2(2) 25

Focus on ELT

www.focusonelt.com

It was also found out that there is a Pearson positive and (.80-1.0 “very strong”),088

correlation between the challenges of writing the assignments in abstract topics and

challenges students face when they do an assignment that prepares them for the official DP

test. Although some students mentioned they sometimes do not know what is expected,

they are happy about the assignments.

Table 4. One- way ANOVA results for the language strategies sub-scale to solve the challenges students face.

ANOVA

Sum of

Squares Df Mean Squares F Sig.

explanations Between

Groups

1,400 3 ,467 ,208 ,890

Within

Groups

248,548 111 2,239

Total 249,948 114

Films I watch Between

Groups

2,835 3 ,945 ,822 ,484

Within

Groups

127,548 111 1,149

Total 130,383 114

Pre-readings Between

Groups

23,308 3 7,769 4,665 ,004

Within

Groups

184,866 111 1,665

Total 208,174 114

Selective courses Between

Groups

8,417 3 2,806 1,697 ,172

Within

Groups

183,548 111 1,654

Total 191,965 114

Synthesis difficulty Between

Groups

9,055 3 3,018 2,030 ,114

Within

Groups

165,066 111 1,487

Total 174,122 114

Strategies for writing Between

Groups

5,688 3 1,896 1,320 ,272

Within

Groups

159,442 111 1,436

Total 165,130 114

Home-school books Between

Groups

15,046 3 5,015 2,656 ,052

Within

Groups

209,615 111 1,888

Total 224,661 114

Adding my comment Between

Groups

10,460 3 3,487 2,980 ,035

Within

Groups

129,888 111 1,170

Total 140,348 114

Karanfil, F. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2020 2(2) 26

Focus on ELT

www.focusonelt.com

In order to decrease the type 1 errors of conducting a t-test, one-way ANOVA was

conducted, values between groups and within groups were tested. In the challenges and

language strategies part, there were 8 items (2,4,6,10,12,14,16,19), the ANOVA results

showed that only “Pre-readings I have done before courses help me to understand the

content better “have a significance p = .004.

In the interview, state school 2 said that “I enjoy learning the terms in different

courses in Turkish first then I learn them in English” (State school student 2 /data recorded

on 20 December 2019)

By learning the concepts first in their L1, they can translanguage and have better

retention of knowledge. Students in the CBI programme also can build on their knowledge

(scaffold) and learn the things they already know with a bilingual perspective. In a similar

vein, Xiaozhen (2010) found that learning CBI topics is an advantage for students who

already studied these topics in their mother tongue. The participants of the DP programme

were chosen from successful students (language and other courses) in both schools.

Similarly, as mentioned previously Fujii (2000) found in this study that students with

higher proficiency levels reacted more positively towards the CBI since they had the

necessary skills and learning strategies to handle the cognitive and metacognitive load of

the CBI course.

When students’ general attitudes and challenges toward their CBI programme were

examined, the questions 7,9,11,13,17,22 were analysed on the SPSS programme. The

researcher found out that “studying abroad at the tertiary level is the reason for my

participation in this bilingual programme. In the interviews, the prep and 9th graders were

generally planning to study in Turkey but the ones in the 11th and 12th grades were

planning to study in Canada, UK, Holland, Germany, and other countries.

Table 5. The One-Sample t-test regarding the attitudes and challenges of the programme

Test Value = 0.005

Sig. (2-

tailed) Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of

the Difference

Lower Upper

studying abroad 25,90 ,000 3,551 3,279 3,823

YGS disadvantage 25,72 ,000 3,160 2,916 3,403

too much production 31,29 ,000 3,351 3,139 3,563

some topics 22,25 ,000 3,047 2,776 3,318

world citizen 25,27 ,000 3,368 3,104 3,633

One state school student said that: “I think we have to work harder for the YGS

(University Entrance Exam) as our curriculum and Turkish curriculum is slightly different”

(State school student 2 /data recorded on 20 December 2019)

From the interviews’ entry, we can assume that some students may plan the study in

Turkey but most students (82%) want to study abroad. The teachers at the private school

mentioned that when they graduate from the 12th grade, almost all of them study abroad, as

the second-highest mean holder “being a world citizen” is a concern for the DP students

that is why they love studying the content in English. Moreover, another advantage of CBI

Karanfil, F. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2020 2(2) 27

Focus on ELT

www.focusonelt.com

is that students who have a negative attitude towards English courses receive opportunities

to change their negative attitude towards English (British Council, 2013). Studying in CBI

they might understand that English is not a subject at school, it is a lingua franca and a key

to the bilingual identity.

As a response to the item 22 (My school forces me to produce too much is a short

time) on this items t (115) = 31.29, the highest of all in the subscales which means it has

more power to reject a false null hypothesis and find a significant result. The results will be

elaborated and discussed in the next section.

Discussion

The students taking the lessons using CBI have higher scores in writing tasks than the

other group of students in secondary school. They were more eager to learn when their

tasks included communicative and authentic features (Elgün - Gündüz, Akcan & Bayyurt,

2012). We can conclude the CBI programme accelerates their writing skills and they will

be expressing the scientific findings in a more fluent way than their peers.

Lasagabaster and Sierra (2009) stated that as a result of working hard to develop

students’ foreign language skills, education departments in Europe revealed that CBI is the

best way to improve students’ foreign language skills.

The results of the present study indicated that language and content integration

provide a meaningful and purposeful learning context for students for high school students.

When language is a medium for meaningful communication through genuine interactions,

activities have a real purpose and require an authentic exchange of meaning. The subject

matter learning enables learners to improve their reading and writing skills as they can

develop schemata about a subject through the course and the learners can apply already

existing schema into new learning situations.

Conclusion

The results of the present study have some implications for language teaching in particular

to CBI classroom or any other situations where the content is thought in any foreign

language. Teachers who are qualified in language and content integration could organize

teacher cooperation more effectively and design successful CBI programs. Objectives can

be decided, and the instruction can be planned accordingly. The results indicate that

language and content- integration in EFL classes can result in better content learning which

can lead to students’ familiarization with different topics from different areas of interest.

This is a natural way to improve the target language. Students are active during the lessons

and CBI helps students to participate in class. Maybe as in the past, some teacher training

programmes in Turkey should be delivered in English so schools can find qualified

teachers for these courses.

Teacher preparation is also needed for successful CBI programs. Content-based

language teacher training programs should be included in preservice education programs in

EFL contexts including Turkey. For a better designed CBI EFL classes, more research

should be conducted. The future researchers, rather than challenges, may investigate how

bilingual identity develops in PYP (Primary Years Programme) and find out the earlier, the

better approach works in the PYP program.

Karanfil, F. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2020 2(2) 28

Focus on ELT

www.focusonelt.com

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

Arslan, R., & Saka, C. K. (2010). Teaching English to science students via a theme-based model of content-

based instruction. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7(4), 26-36.

Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-based second language instruction. New

York, NY: Newbury House

Çorlu, M. S. (2014). Which preparatory curriculum for the International Baccalaureate Diploma Program is

best? The challenge for international schools with regard to mathematics and science.

International Review of Education, 60(6), 793–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-014-9446-9

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms (Vol.

20). John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.20

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual

Review of applied linguistics, 31, 182-204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092

Dimova, S., & Kling, J. (2018). Assessing English‐medium instruction lecturer language proficiency across

disciplines. TESOL Quarterly, 52(3), 634-656. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.454

Ebata, M. (2009). Content-based instruction. In M. A. Vyas & Y. L. Patel (Eds.), Teaching English as a

Second Language: A New Pedagogy for a New Century (pp. 129–135). PHI Learning Private.

Elgün- Gündüz, Z., Akcan, S. & Bayyurt, Y. (2012). Isolated form-focused instruction and integrated form-

focused instruction in primary school English classrooms in Turkey. Language, Culture, and

Curriculum, 25(2), 157-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2012.683008

Feng, A. (2005). Bilingualism for the minor or the major? An evaluative analysis of parallel conceptions in

China. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(6), 529-551.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050508669067

Fujii, T. (2000). [Content-Based language education for undergraduate students, with particular reference to

the Kansai Gaidai IES program]. Kansai Gaidai educational research and report, 1, 7-18. from the

National Institute of Informatics Scholarly and Academic Information Navigator.

İlhan, E., & Kayabaşı, Y. (2014). Yükseköğretim düzeyindeki özel amaçlı İngilizce derslerinde içerik

tabanlı yabancı dil öğretim yaklaşımının öğrencilerin akademik başarılarına etkisi. Journal of

Turkish Educational Sciences, 12(1), 16-22.

Kiziltan, N., & Ersanh, C. Y. (2007). The contributions of theme-based CBI to Turkish young learners’

language development in English. Journal of Language & Linguistic Studies, 3(1), 133-148.

Krahnke, K. (1987). Approaches to Syllabus Design for Foreign Language Teaching [M]. Prentice-Hall.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2005). A critical analysis of post-method. ILI Language Teaching Journal, 1(1), 21-

25.

Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than

similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 367-375. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp082

Moriyoshi, N. (2010). Content-based instruction (CBI) in Japanese college classrooms: Focusing on

language, content, or both? [Doctoral dissertation, McGill University Library].

Murphey, T. (1997). A CBI curriculum innovation: Nanzan's revolving six-week workshops. Language

Teacher-KytoJALT, 21, 25-30.

Piano-Clark, V., & Creswell, J. (2008). The mixed-method reader. Sage Publications.

Satılmış, Y., Yakup, D., Selim, G., & Aybarsha, I. (2015). Teaching concepts of natural sciences to

foreigners through content-based instruction: The adjunct model. English Language Teaching,

8(3), 97-103. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n3p97

Snow, M. A., & Brinton, D. (Eds.). (2017). The content-based classroom: New perspectives on integrating

language and content. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.8198148

Soruç, A., & Griffiths, C. (2017). English as a medium of instruction: Students' strategies. ELT

Journal, 72(1), 38-48. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccx017

Tedick, D. J. (2018). Teacher development for content-based instruction. In ELT in Asia in the Digital Era:

Global Citizenship and Identity (pp. 19-30). Routledge.

Tedick, D. J., Christian, D., & Fortune, T. W. (2011). The future of immersion education: An invitation to

‘dwell in possibility’. In D. J. Tedick, D. Christian, & T. W. Fortune (Eds.), Immersion education:

Practices, policies, possibilities (pp. 1–10). Multilingual Matters.

https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847694041

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-014-9446-9
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.20
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.454
https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2012.683008
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050508669067
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp082
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n3p97
https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.8198148
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccx017
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847694041

Karanfil, F. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2020 2(2) 29

Focus on ELT

www.focusonelt.com

Tsai, Y. L.& Shang, H. F. (2010). The impact of content-based language instruction on EFL students'

reading performance. Asian Social Science, 6(3), 77-85. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v6n3p77

Turkey Education Vision 2023. (2019). T.C. Ministry of Education. http://2023vizyonu.meb.gov.tr

Türkiye’de İngilizce Öğretimi Araştırması. (2013). British Council.

https://www.britishcouncil.org.tr/programmes/education/research.

Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford University Press.

Xiaozhen, Z. (2010). Course designing strategies of bilingual curriculum based on CBI. Journal of

Guangdong University.

Copyrights

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons

Attribution license (CC BY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v6n3p77
http://2023vizyonu.meb.gov.tr/
https://www.britishcouncil.org.tr/programmes/education/research