CLT Vs CBI

Second language learning and teaching methodologies and approaches are always
evolving. Every few decades, a new linguist will criticize and put into question the dominating
language paradigm and build a new one based on their fresh insights. When looking at
Communicative Language Teaching and Content-Based Instruction, their justification is
found in the previous needs for a language teaching approach that took into consideration
more than just grammatical rules and structure. To have a clearer understanding of CLT and
CBI, it can be said that the former states that the goal of language teaching should be
communicative competence, while in the latter students acquire the target language through
content. CLT and CBI, although bearing some differences, can be compared in various
aspects.
The first aspect to be analyzed represents a similarity between Communicative
Language Teaching and Content-Based Instruction and is the fact that they are both
approaches. The American applied linguist Edward Anthony defines an approach as “a set
of correlative assumptions dealing with the nature of language teaching and learning.”. The
notion of CLT and CBI as approaches is not a minor one. If one understands an approach as
the philosophical beliefs about language teaching and learning, then the possibilities for their
implementation and the techniques used are of great variety.
A second aspect that can be analyzed is the theory of language behind these
approaches. Under CLT, language is understood before anything as a system for expressing
meaning, with its primary functions being interaction and communication. As Richards and
Rodgers (2001) point out, CBI is based on two principles, where the first one states that
people learn a second language more successfully when they use it as a means of acquiring
information. In a way, similarly to CLT, CBI also highlights the importance of the
communicative aspect of language. In the acquisition of language through content, the
emphasis is also put on the meaning and thus, communication.
The third aspect of these approaches to be discussed is the theory of learning. Those
adhering to CBI believe that languages are better learned when students use the target
language in order to learn about different topics. In CLT, the communication principle is the
main element regarding learning, and it is believed that activities that involve real
communication promote learning. The learners should acquire the language as a result of
using it for real communication. CLT and CBI can then be compared as they both accentuate
the importance of practice to develop communicative skills. In addition, CBI, in efforts to offer
real-world learning opportunities, states that skills should be taught in an integrated manner.
The design of the objectives and the syllabus is perhaps one of the areas where we
find more differences than similarities. Neither CLT nor CBI proposes specific objectives
because of its condition as approaches. In CLT, the main objective is to acquire
communicative competence. Therefore, in general terms and considering the syllabus
proposed by the Council of Europe, the objectives must be related to specific aspects of
communicative competence according to the learners’ needs and proficiency levels. As for
CBI, it is a different scenario. The main goal is not to acquire language, but to use language
as a means of acquiring information. Learning the content is considered before than learning
the language. In consequence, both the objectives and the syllabus relate to the specific
areas of content set to be learned by the students.
Regarding the roles of both the teacher and the learners, it can be concluded that
CLT and CBI may face similar struggles. Both approaches, in their pursuit of bringing
authenticity to the classroom, present rather different teacher-student roles compared to
those of traditional teaching. CLT and CBI encourage the role of the learner as a key part of
the class. Both approaches agree on the fact that the teacher should take learners’ needs
and interests into consideration when planning the course. It would be appropriate to say
that CLT and CBI classes are student-centered, as opposed to the traditional
teacher-centered classes. Breaking these preconceived ideas about the roles of the teacher
and the learner and implementing a new dynamic can be a challenge for both parties.
Lastly, considering the use of materials, CLT and CBI point out the need for
authenticity. CBI is known for its use of authentic material, the texts used and the tasks
carried out, come from the real world, but can also be adapted to fit different levels of
proficiency. CLT also uses real-world tasks and materials, however, this is only one kind of
the materials used. In addition to “realia”, text-based and task-based designed materials and
activities are used in CLT. In this approach, the material has the main role of promoting
communicative language use.
It can finally be concluded that CLT and CBI present more general similarities than
differences. This should not come as a surprise, as when studying the background for CBI, a
lot can be traced back to the main principles of CLT. Considering different approaches
should not be seen as a matter of “choosing one”. In their day-to-day teaching, teachers do
not stick to one approach or method, but rather skillfully determine which one will be better
suitable for their current goals or objectives in the course. Considering that CLT and CBI
overlap in many aspects, I believe that they should be understood and applied holistically,
and in association with other methods or approaches that would highly benefit them, such as
TBL.
Bibliography:
● Bula Villalobos, O. (2014). Content-Based Instruction: A Relevant Approach of
Language Teaching. Innovaciones Educativas, Vol. 20, Costa Rica.
● Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Communicative Language Teaching. In
Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (Cambridge Language Teaching
Library). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
● Snowand, M., Brinton, D. (1997). The Content-Based Classroom: Perspectives on
Integrating Language and Content. White Plains, NY: Longman.

CLT Vs CBI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLT Vs CBI

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLT Vs CBI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Second language learning and teaching methodologies and approaches are always

You might also like