An Empirical Study of Content-Based Instruction Applied in Non-English-Majored Graduate English Teaching in the Post-Massification

Yougen Lou

doi:10.4236/ce.2015.614158

Home > Journals > Social Sciences & Humanities > CE

Creative Education > Vol.6 No.14, August 2015

An Empirical Study of Content-Based Instruction Applied in Non-English-Majored Graduate English Teaching in the Post-Massification ()

Yougen Lou

School of Foreign Studies, Yangtze University, Jingzhou, China.

DOI: 10.4236/ce.2015.614158 PDF HTML XML 2,836 Downloads 3,507 Views Citations

Abstract

In the post-massification period, it is a beneficial attempt to the reform of English Teaching based on subject content for non-English-majored graduate students. Content-Based Instruction (CBI) has been defined as “the teaching of content 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”, which can make non-English-majored graduate students not only learn subject knowledge but also improve their foreign language (English) ability in learning content. Results in this study showed that: in the post-massification period, content-based English teaching could improve the level of motivation and English language ability of students in their English learning, but CBI was not suitable for poor English learners with no good foreign language (English) basis.

Keywords

CBI, Graduate English Teaching, Post-Massification Period

Share and Cite:

Lou, Y. (2015) An Empirical Study of Content-Based Instruction Applied in Non-English-Majored Graduate English Teaching in the Post-Massification. Creative Education, 6, 1578-1583. doi: 10.4236/ce.2015.614158.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Benesch, S. (1988). Linking Content and Language Teachers: Collaboration across the Curriculum. In S. Benesch, (Ed.), Ending Remediation: Linking ESL and Content in Higher Education. Washington DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
[2]	Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-Based Second Language Instruction. New York: Harper & Row.
[3]	Chumpavan, S. A (2001). Comparative Study of Two English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Programs: Non-Content-Based and Content-Based at the University Level in Thailand. PhD Dissertation, Normal: Illinois State University.
[4]	Crandall, J. (1999). Content-Based Instruction (CBI). Concise Encyclopedia of Educational Linguistics (pp. 208-604). Oxford, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[5]	Kasper, L. F. (1994). Improved Reading Performance for ESL Students through Academic Course Pairing. Journal of Reading, 5, 376-384.
[6]	Kasper, L. F. (1997). The Impact of Content-Based Instructional Programs on the Academic Progress of ESL Students. English f or Specific Purposes, 4, 309-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00035-5
[7]	Li, L. S. (2002). Sustained-Content Language Teaching Mode and Its Enlightenment to College English Teaching Reform in China. Foreign Language World, 4, 36-40.
[8]	Lv, L. H. (2001). The Integration of Language and Content—Trend of Foreign Language Teaching Reform. Global Education, 8, 52-56.
[9]	Mohan, B. A. (1986). Language and Content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
[10]	Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (p. 204). New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667305.021
[11]	Yu, L. M., & Han, J. X. (2003). Based on Course Teaching in Ottawa and Its Enlightenment. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 3, 465-468.