Content-Based Instruction for
Foreign Language Classrooms
zyxwv
zyxwvutsrq
ABSTRACT Content-based instruction (CBI) is a
communicativeapproach to language teaching that is
growing in popularity in both government and
zyxwvut
academicforeign language cides. The authorsdejine
CBI as a curriculum that I ) is based on subject mat-
ter, 2) utilizes authentic materials, 3) promotes the
learning of new information, and 4) considersspec$c
students’ needs. Examples of CBIprograms arepro-
zyxwvuts
vided. The Russian and Spanish CBIprogramsat the
Foreign Service Institute are discussed in depth.
Readers are requested to share their CBI experience
with the authors.
Introduction
During the last decade, a growing number of foreign
language educators who work with adults have ex-
perimented with different forms of content-based in-
struction (CBI). CBI, radically different from tradi-
tional foreign language methods, is among the most
exciting and challenging of the communicative ap-
proaches that are growing in popularity among
second language and foreign language educators.
Betty Lou Leaver (Ph.D. candidate, University of Pittsburgh)
is a curriculum and training specialist with the Department
of Research, Evaluation, and Development of the Foreign
Service Institute and former FSI Russian Language Training
Supervisor.
zyxwvutsrq
Stephen B Stryker (Ph.D., University of Arizona) is the Head
of the Spanish Section of the Foreign Service Institute @I),
Department of State, Washington, D.C.
Foreign Language Annals, 22, No. 3, 1989 269
Betty Lou Leaver,
Stephen B. Stryker
Foreign Service Institute
z
zy
Pioneer work in CBI was done in “immersion” pro-
grams in Canada in the 1960s. CBI took root in Bi-
lingual Education in both Canada and the U.S. by the
1970s, and later moved into English as a Second
Language (ESL) and various sheltered content pro-
grams aimed at preparing limited English proficient
children as rapidly as possible for entry into elemen-
tary and secondary school mainstream courses in
English.
Foreign language CBI programs have sought in
similar ways to combine foreign language study with
the study of content, specific to the needs of a given
student population. Recent experiments indicate that
such language/content integration programs,
although requiring special resources, offer several ad-
vantages over more traditional programs.
The Evolution of CBI
Many current approaches in adult foreign language
instruction -“the Functional Approach:’ “the Whole
Language Approach:’ “the Natural Approach:’ “Ac-
celerated Learning:’ etc. - have evolved from
developments in linguistics, psycholinguistics,
cognitive studies, and second language acquisition.
Some claim that the theoretical impetus behind the
development of these ideas is traceable to the
generativegrammar theories of linguist Noam Chom-
sky (9,lO). Chomsky redefined language, emphasiz-
ing its creative aspects rather than the mimicry and
memorization model that had been theorized by
behaviorists led by B. F. Skinner (28). Influenced by
270
sociolinguist Dell Hymes’ (15) expansion on Chom-
sky’s differentiationbetween competenceand perfor-
mance, second languageresearchersand practitioners
in the 1960sadopted Chomsky’s concept of “linguistic
competence reorganizedit, combined it with produc-
tive sociolinguisticcompetence, and coined the catch-
phrase for the ’70s and ’80s: “communicative com-
petence?
The term communicative competence is generally
understood to mean the ability of persons to com-
municate with native speakers in realistic situations:
real interpersonal communication that cannot be
separated from the cultural, paralinguistic, and non-
zyxwvutsrq
verbal aspects of language (Spolsky, 29).
By the early 1970s ESL specialists realized the
significance of this concept in developing new ap-
proaches and methods for their language classrooms.
The frustrations and failures of the Audio-Lingual
Method (ALM) had left fertile ground for the cultiva-
tion of a new paradigm for L2 teaching. The search for
zyxwvuts
a new paradigm led to extensive theoretical considera-
zyxwvuts
tion of the concept of communicativecompetenceand
zyxwvut
its implications for the L2 classroom by leading ESL
and foreign language specialists: Savignon (24);
Paulston (22); Wilkins (34); Widdowson (33); Canale
zyxwv
and Swain (5); Krashen (17); and Bachman (2), just
to mention a few. Those authors, among others, shaped
the new paradigm: “teaching L2 for communicative
competence? By the mid-1970s a convergence of
languageacquisitiontheory and real-life classroom ex-
perience became apparent.
One of the variations on the theme of teaching for
zyxwvut
communicativecompetence that had emerged by the
beginning of the 1980s was CBI. Contemporary
content-based programs are less a new methodology
than a logical extension of current proficiency-based
cumculum designs. In fact, CBI is not altogether new.
Curriculumexperimentsusing CBI can be tracedback
to the 1920s (Linguistics Institute of Ireland, 19). In
Canada, CBI was the methodological cornerstone of
immersion and foreign language programs for K-12
zy
students (FLES) as far back as the early 1960s. The
zyxw
“immersionprograms:’ especially the St. Lambert Ex-
periment in Montreal (Lambert, 18), were influential
in bringing CBI methodology to the attention of
second language educators everywhere. These pro-
grams, designed primarily to teach the French
language to English-speakingchildren, were very suc-
cessful (Swain, 32; Stevens, 31; Hart, et al., 13). The
Canadian model was adopted for similar programs in
the United States, most notably the Culver City Ex-
periment (Cohen, 11).
These experiments in CBI in bilingual education
settings dovetail well with developments in second
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - MAY 1989 zyx
language and foreign language teaching. Various
models for content-based instruction for adults have
been attempted in a variety of settings. One of the
most common is an “adjunct model” in which
zyx
EFL/ESL courses are linked with content courses, in-
tegrating the reading, writing, and study skills needed
for academic success (Snow and Brinton, 27). Another
common model i s the English for Special Purposes
(ESP) model, in which content courses are offered as
electives in specialized areasof study, such as business,
medicine, science, and technology (Cantoni-Harvey,
6; Chamot, 7; Crandall, 12). Present-day examples of
CBI in foreign language classrooms include university
foreign language programs “for special purposes:’
such as business or technical foreign language courses,
as well as content courses offered at the Goethe In-
stitute and other commercial language schools in
Europe. Since 1980the Foreign ServiceInstitute (FSI)
has been experimenting with increasingly greater
amounts of CBI in its curricula. The Center for Ap-
plied Linguistics (CAL) has recently developed a
generic model for CBI lesson planning and material
adaptation (Short, 26).
In short, CBI has enjoyed greater popularity in “im-
mersion” programs, ESL classes, and in FLES pro-
grams than in adult foreign language classrooms.
However, interest among foreign language educators
is growing and many more teachers, looking to these
related areas for inspiration, are beginning to experi-
ment with content-based curricula in their L2 classes
for adults.
Toward a Definition of Content-Based Instruction
Part of the current mystery surrounding CBI
emanates from the fact that no definition of CBI has
yet been universally accepted. Each institution has
been left to define CBI in its own way. Each isolated
CBI program has been a new variation on a shared,
but unarticulated, concept. In order to clarifythe con-
ceptual design of CBI and to establish a framework for
teachers who would like to develop CBI programs, we
suggest the following definition:
A content-based instructional approach is one in
which language proficiency is achieved by shifting the
focus of the course from the learning of languageper
se to the learning of subject matter. CBI in its purest
form should have four characteristics:
1. Subject matter core. The fundamental organiza-
tion of the cumculum should be derived from the
subject matter, rather than from forms, functions,
or situations. Communicativecompetencewill be
acquired during the process of mastering content
information on specific topics, such as social
studies, culture, business, history, political
 zyxwvuts
zyxwvut
zyxwvutsrq
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - MAY 1989
systems, international affairs, economics, etc
2. Use of authentic texts. The core material (texts.
video tapes, audio recordings, visual aids, etc)
should be selected primarily (but not exclusive-
ly) from those produced for native speakers of
the language The learning activitiesshould be
both expository and experientialin nature and
focus on conveying real messages and ac-
complishing specific tasks.
zyxwvuts
3. Learning of new information.Students should
use the foreign language to learn new informa-
zyxwvu
tion and to evaluate that information, based on
knowledge of their own culture (C1) and their
own emerging cultural literacy in the second
culture 3.()
4. Appropriate to the specific needs of students.
The topics, content, materials, and learning ac-
tivities should correspond to the cognitive and
affective needs of the students and should be
appropriateto the proficiency level of the class.
CBI in the Classroom
CBI may be implemented effectively in many dif-
ferent ways, depending on the setting, the resources
available, the foreign language proficiency of the
students, and its appropriateness in achieving the
overall objectives of a program of study. In some situa-
tions, a CBI approach might be especially appropriate
as the organizational framework (i.e., the syllabus
design) for an entire L2 curriculum - as in the case
of many “immersion” programs in a bilingual setting.
In other situations, CBI might be more appropriate as
a design for “add-on” or “topping-off’’ modules
within a more eclectic organizational framework-as
in the case of ESP courses, optional “content courses:’
or even literature courses in a foreign language
zyxwv were taught in the foreign language for two or three
program.
Activities in the CBI classroom are basically of two
kinds: what Mohan (21) calls “expository approaches”
and “experiential approaches!’ Expository activities
include lectures, reading of articles and other texts, stu-
dent presentations, and classroom discussions. Ex-
periential activities include role-plays, workshops,
simulations, field trips, demonstrations, and interac-
tion with native speakers. Content may include
political affairs, economics, business and commerce,
or any other topic that meets the needs of a particular
group of students.
In university programs, by far the most popular
topics have been related to international business.
Some of the more successful programs are the business
courses in French at Drury College, the political
studies courses in Russian at George Washington
University, the Greek Mythology course in French at
271
Northern Arizona University, the scientific-technical
program in French at Napier Collegein Scotland, and
the medical programs at the University of Lancaster
in the United Kingdom. TWO language schools, the
Monterey Institute of International Studies in Califor-
nia and the Experiment in International Living in
Brattleboro, Vermont have introduced content-based
instruction in some of their foreign language classes.
Eastern Michigan University’s World College,
specializing in teaching Language for Special Purposes
(LSP) and international business, has done much to
bring CBI to the attention of foreign language
educators and business leaders through its annual con-
ferences on teaching foreign languages for business
and the professions.
The Foreign ServiceInstitute‘s attmction to CBI was
due in great part to its special appropriateness as a
training technique for the foreign servicecommunity.
Models currently being developed and tested at the
FSI,informed by but not confined to current theory,
have been developed from original ideas and practical
experimentation.Language trainers at the Foreign Ser-
vice Institute began to experiment with CBI in small
portions of the curriculum in the early 1980s.
In several of the 35 languagestaught at the FSI,CBI
lessons were interspersed systematically throughout
the entire curriculum as “area studies” lessons that
hours per week (out of a total of 28 hours of language
instruction per week).
In 1985 the FSI made a major move toward CBI by
designing large portions of the Russian and Spanish
curricula along CBI lines. A CBI curriculum for
Spanish was developed for students who were nearing
the end of their 24-week training program and who
had already reached levels of S-2/R-2, described as
“LimitedWorking Proficiencyl’ The Spanish pilot pro-
gram was implemented for students enroute to work
in the American embassy and consulates in Mexico.
A four-week “topping-off” module, totaling about 120
hours of study, addressed a variety of sociopolitical
and cultural topics. The numerous topics that formed
the basis for each unit of study dovetailed with the
major division of topics in the FSI’s School of Area
Studies: political system, economics, social life,
culture, and foreign policy. Thus, the units bore titles
such as “La Revoluci6n:’ “El sistema polhico:’ “La
education:' or “La familial’ Each of the units required
eight to ten hours of study and consisted of a multi-
media approach, with heavy emphasis on current
video material. The four-week program for Mexico,
developed and tested between 1985and 1987,wasvery
successful, and the model has been emulated in
developing programs for other regions of Latin
212
~- zyxwvutsrq
zyxw
America and in other language sections at the FSI.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - MAY 1989

grammar was successfully taught in the MMC format

The School of International and Public Affairs of proposed by Paulston and Bruder (23), in which
Columbia University, recognizingthe potential of the students work initially with mechanical drills, then

zyxwvut
CBI approach for the Mexico program in a college set- meaningfuldrills, and ultimately communicativedrills.
ting, adapted the FSI Mexican curriculum into a full- These drills used the vocabulary and grammaticalstruc-
semester course that has been offered successfully tures present in the content-based portions of the
there since the spring of 1987. course The advanced Russian course teaches grammar
Since 1985the FBI Russian basic language training in several traditional ways, but only when required and
program has used CBI curricular units in an area rarely more often than once a week. The Spanish sec-
studies integration effort, as weekly “add-ons” to the tion intersperses explicit grammar lessons at regular in-

zyxwvuts
regular program. Units include geography of the tervals throughout the 4-week CBI program. These
Soviet Union, the political system, domestic grammar lessons focus on problems that have been
economics, human rights, jurisprudence, military manifested in students’ production in class. Spanish

zyxwvuts
affairs, and fourteen other topics that parallel those students also conduct “self-correction” exercises of
taught in the FSI School of Area Studies. grammatical errors using recorded samples of their own
In 1984 the €31Russian section developed an ad- classroom presentations. To date, students in both the
vanced program for students entering at the SIR-3 Spanish and Russian CBI programs have demonstxated
level, described as “General Professional Proficiency? growth in grammatical accuracy that is at least com-
The goal of the program was to train them to the WR-4 parable to that of students in the regular grammar-
level, described as “Advanced Professional Proficien- oriented program.
&’ In this program, which was field-tested between
1984 and 1986, CBI dominated the curriculum. At the Advantages of CBI
beginning of this 6-10 month advanced course, EnhancedMotivation. Student reactions to the CBI
students discussed with their instructors those experiments in Russian and Spanish at FSI indicate that
thematic issues they wished to cover. All reading, CBI has the potential to enhance student motivation.

zyxwvut
speaking, listening, and writing assignments then A majority of the students described a “quantum
revolved around these negotiated topics. Since most of leap” in their interest and involvement in the courses,
the topics were current issues, reading materials came when “real issues” became the focus of study. The in-
straight from the Soviet press, listening materials from crease in motivation may occur because CBI takes in-
Soviet television and radio. Topics included current to account the literacy skills, experience, cognitive skills,
political issues (e.g., Chernobyl in 1986, perestroika and self-motivation inherent in most adult students.
and glasnost in 1988-1989), the history of Soviet- Perhaps higher expectations generate higher
American diplomatic relations, human rights, achievements. In other words, if students are expected
dissidence and dissidents, contemporary literature,ex- to demonstrate fluency and literacy in the second
change of scientific knowledge and technology, language, to apply previously-acquiredknowledge, to
perestroika in the economic sphere, regional conflicts, use cognitive skills, and to display initiative, they are
the internal political and power structure of the likely to do so. Thus, the training becomes challenging
U.S.S.R., comparativegovernment, foreign policy, and and intemting to them, further increasing their motiva-
many others. The length of time spent on any one tion - and, ultimately, skill development and
topic, usually ranging from two weeks to several self-confidence
months, was also negotiated, depending on the interest Enhanced self-Confidence.FSI students, who ex-

zyxwv
and needs of individual students. Grammar was perience the sensation of using combined L2 and C2
taught periodically, but systematically, as the need skills to accomplish a realtask, appear to become more
arose for studentsto master an advanced construction confident of their ability to use the language in untested
necessary for communication on whatever topic was situations. For the two-day “professional conference”
being studied. that occurs near the end of the &week Russian course,

zyxwvut
Although the explicit study of grammar in CBI FSI students write and present papers in Russian on
courses is peripheral to the topics under discussion, political, economic, military, and other themes. This
most CBI courses should, and indeed do, treat gram- elaborate simulation exercise seems to act as a catalyst
mar as an integral part of the course work. (Gram- for rapid skill-developmentduring the subsequent six
matical accuracy is, after all,an important component to eight weeks of the Russian program. The observed
of language proficiency and must be a major part of the increase in speed of language acquisition may be due
“hidden agenda” of any CBI curriculum.) In the early in part to the students’ increased self-confidence in
stages of the Russian CBI basic language program, using Russian in a realistic, professional setting. These
 zyxwvuts
zyxwvuts
zyxwvuts
zyxwvutsr
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - MAY 1989
observations would seem to support studies cited by
Kmhen (17) that success in language learning comlates
zyxwvutsrq
positively with student motivation and self-confidence
zyxwvutsrq
These findings would also seem to confirm the
hypothesis presented by Schleppegrell (25, p. 2) that
“the adult learns best not by rote, but by integrating
new concepts and material into already existing
cognitive structures!’
Enhanced L2 hficienq. Content-based instruction
for adult learners also appears to enhance the speed of
foreign language acquisition. The informal experiments
that have been done at FSI are encouraging. When CBI
was introducedinto the FSI Russian program in 1984,
the percentage of students reaching S-3/R-3 in a ten-
month period rose from 25 percent (the previous
five-year average) to 88 percent. Realistically, some of
the improvement could be accounted for by other
changes in the curriculum, such as greater expectations
placed on the students, greater flexibility in adapting
classroom and homework activitiesto match learning
styles, and the introduction of systematic use of
Russian in a student-emigrant internship program.
However, the students themselves most frequently
attributed their increased confidence and proficiency
to the CBI elements in the curriculum and the greatest
gains in proficiency, as measured by interim FSI
proficiency tests, were made during the periods when
students were receiving the greatest amounts of content-
based instruction. While other changes in the Russian
basic program make it difficult to determine with ab-
solute certainty that CBI is the salient factor responsi-
zyxwvuts
ble for the success of the revised program, the advanced
course offers few competing factors, since the syllabus
design is based solely on content. Although there are no
similar programs with which the advanced Russian
course can be compared, the apparent success of the
program is notable No student who has attended at
least six months of the course has failed to reach S / R 4
Of the twenty-seven students who have completed at
least two months of the advanced course, 33 percent
reached S/R-4,56 percent reached S-3 + /R4, and 11
percent reached S/R-3 + .
zyxwv
When the Spanish section introduced CBI at the end
of its %week basic course, statisticalresults measured
by pre- and post-FSI proficiency tests showed average
increases in speaking and reading scores that were
higher than norms for Spanish training. The time
required for studentsto p r o p from S/R-2+ to S/R-3
decreased from six weeks to four weeks, and about 20
percent of the students in the CBI program moved up
one full SIR point in only four weeks-a jump that
normally takes ten to twelve weeks. Students’ gram-
matical growth was significant, but even more
remarkable improvements in student comprehension
and fluency were demonstrated on the FSI proficien-
cy tests.
273
Improvements in these two skills in particular are not
surprisihg. The development of student comprehension
probably results from the large amount of “comprehen-
sible” native-level input that the students experience in
both written and oral form, combined with the in-
creased interest and improved self-confidencefactors.
Increased fluency probably results from the combina-
tion of these same factors and daily, systematic oral
presentations that are carefully prepared, rehearsed,
corrected, and delivered.
Enhanced CuttumILitemq.FSI experiments suggest
that a CBI curriculum focused strongly on sociopoli-
tical and cultural information and cross-cultural
literacy skills provides students with a significant
short-cut to C2 proficiency that might normally take
months or years “incountry” to achieve. For example,
deriving the real meaning from a Russian newspaper
item requires not only a certain reading proficiency but
a certain C2 proficiency, as well. In the U.S.S.R. con-
siderablecultural knowledge is required to understand
the real message, which is contained “between and
beyond the lines” of almost any communication.
What is not stated is usually of greater significance
than what is stated. CBI, with its ever-present emphasis
on C2 and authentic reading materials, fosters the
development of students’ ability to understand the real
message in such communication.
In summary, the kinds of advantages observed in
the FSI programs - increased motivation, self-con-
fidence, cultural literacy, and general L2 proficiency
-seem to indicate that CBI is an especially effective
approach for adult learners. These findings appear to
correlate well with observations made by Swain and
Lapkin (32) in their analysis of Canadian “immersion”
programs for older learners. In explainingthe relative-
ly greater success of older learners as compared to
younger learners, Swain and Lapkin suggest that more
mature learners are more “efficient learners” because
they can apply knowledge of literacy functions and
skills in their L1 to their developing competence in L2.
Another reason why older learners may be more effi-
cient learners is their cognitive maturity: they are better
able to abstract, to generalize, and to classify, right
from the beginning of their second language ex-
perience. Furthermore, mature learners are able to
reflect on their own language use and to consciously
attend to language per se (32, p. 7 ) .
Resource Requirements for CBI
Unfortunately, lack of resources often hinders the
development of effective CBI programs. A CBI
program requires a minimum level of student

zyxwvutsr
274
sophistication and demands great amounts of staff
time for training teachers and for developing and pro-
curing authentic materials.
Students. The student population must bring the re-
quisite cognitive skills to the classroom. Not all
students coming into college and government
zyxwvut
classrooms are sufficiently knowledgeable about
world geography, politics, and humanistic study to
take full advantage of CBI courses (Bloom, 3; Hirsch,
14). In the absence of the cognitive foundations upon
which to build, CBI programs, unless carefully struc-
tured, can easily falter.
Time. The amount of time that it takes to develop
zyxwvu
zyx
a content-based curriculum is significant-time in
zyx
planning and designing the course, in selecting,
editing, and updating authentic materials, and in
preparing activities to accompany them. Preparation
for the four-week Spanish program at FSI (about
120 instructional hours) required two instructors
working full time for six months.
Materials. Finding appropriate materials is not
always easy. Although authentic materials are most
easily obtained in the countries of origin, accessibili-
ty can be a problem. Materials from Mexico are very
accessible, but in the case of Russian, although
materials for reading have been readily obtainable in
the United States, materials for listening comprehen-
sion have been difficult to come by. Recently however,
thanks to satellite capabilities, video/listening
materials are becoming more and more accessible In-
creasingly, appropriate materials in foreign languages
are being made available in the United States by means
of commercial distributors.
Instructors. Finally, in order for CBI to work effec-
tively, the instructorsmust be more than good language
teachers; they must be knowledgeablein various con-
zyxwvut
tent areas. In addition, they must know how to elicit
content area knowledge from their students. FSI has, in
some cases, overcome this difficulty by having teach-
ers work in teams-a content specialist with a language
instructor.This is the sameteam approach that has been
popular in secondary school ESL programs. Work-
shops conducted by the CAL staff with school districts
bring together ESL, math, science, and other content
teachers to plan content-based lessons and curricula.
The objective is to integrate the subject matter and the
language functions necessary to provide ESL students
with meaningful, relevant content-areainstruction and
contexts upon which to build their language skills.
Conclusion
CBI is an exciting and promising development in the
teaching of foreign languageto adults. Lessons learned
from numerous CBI experimentsin a broad spectrum
zyx
zy
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - MAY 1989
of areashave produced encouraging implications for L2
instruction. Among the most recent are the findings
provided by Swain and Lapkin in their longitudinal
study of Canadian immersion programs. These authors
suggest that the Canadian immersion experience tells
us an important lesson about second language instruc-
tion: “We have learned that grammar should not be
taught in isolation from content. But then, neither
should content be taught without regardto the language
involved. A carefully planned integration of language
and content, however, holds considerable promise“ (32,
P. 9).
A thoroughly integrated CBI approach seems to
offer special advantages for certain adult populations,
such as students in language training at the FSI and
other government agencies, businessmen, students of
English as a Second Language, and a wide variety of
professionals with specialized needs for proficiencyin
both foreign language and culture.CBI can be used ad-
vantageously as a total syllabus design or in modular
form. Modules might focus on area studies, cross-
cultural studies, professional studies, business studies,
or any other content areasof interest to specific groups
of students.
Results of the CBI experimentsat the FSI have been
encouraging. Motivation, C2 proficiency, and global
proficiency all appear to have been enhanced by the CBI
elements added to these programs. Initial results from
implementing a CBI curriculum in both the Russian
and Spanish programs at the FSI have been very
positive The FSIplans to continueto develop and refine
its CBI efforts; meanwhile, the time is ripe to define
CBI, develop new models for teaching via CBI, and
evaluate the results of experiments in CBI. *
NOTES
The authorsare currentlypreparing a book on models for
implementing CBI in foreign language classrooms for adults,
including detailed descriptions of programs in Russian,
Spanish, Arabic, and Indonesian at the FSI,as well as CBI pm-
grams at other institutions. The authors, their colleaguesat the
FSI, and members of the CAL staff continue their search
for new models of CBI and welcome communication from
teachers using CBI, who would care to share their ex-
periences. Karen Willetts of the CAL staff is initiating a list
of CBI practitioners, looking towards an eventual CBI net-
work. Readers who are interested should contact Karen
Willetts at: Center for Applied Linguistics; 1118 22nd Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037; 1-(202) 429-9292.
The authors wish to thank the following colleagues for
reading earlier versions of this paper: H. David Argoff, Gary
Cmwford, Madeline Ehrman, Candice Hunt, Deborah Short,
Christine Stryker,Karen Willetts, and Stephen Zappala. Their
comments contributedto the improvement of this article; any
inaccuraciesthat remain are our own.
 1.
zy
zyxwvuts
zyxwv
zyxwvut
zyxwvutsrqpon
zyxwvu
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - MAY 1989
REFERENCES
Abrate,Jayne. “Commercial French in a Liberal Arts Set-
ting?Ptvcedinp of the FifthAnnual Enreem Michigan
Corlferenceon Languagesfor Business and the Profes-
sions. Unpublished document, 1987.
zyxwvutsrqp
2. Bachman, Lyle. Fundamental Considerations in
Language Testing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company, 1987.
3. Bloom, Allen m e Clming of theAmerican M i d New
zyxwvutsrqponmlkj
York: Simon and Schuster, 1987.
4. Brown, H. Douglas. Principles of Language Learning
zyxwvutsrqpon
and Teaching. Englewd Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall,
1987.
5. Canale, Michael and Menill Swain. “TheoreticalBases
of Communicative Approaches to Second Language
Teaching and ‘Mi@AppliedLinguktics1 (1980): 147.
6. Cantoni-Harvq!G. Content Area Language Instncction
zyxw
Approaches and Strategies. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley Publishing Company, 1987.
I. Chamot, Anna Uhl. “Applications of Second Language
Research to the Bilingual Classroom!’ Fixus 8. Rosslyn,
VA N.C.B.E., 1981.
8. , and J. Michael O’Malley, A Cognitive
LanguageLearning Apptvack A n ESL Content-based
Curriculum. Wheaton, MD: The National Clear-
inghouse for Bilingual Education, 1986.
9. Chomsky, Noam. Aspects of Theory of Syntax Cam-
bridge: MIT Press, 1965.
10. . “Reviewing of Skinner‘s Verbal Behavior”
Language 35 (1959): 26-58.
11. Cohen, A. “The Case for Partial or Total Immersion
Education:’ in A. Simocs, ed., TheBilingual Child New
York Academic Press (1976): 65-89.
12. Crandall, Jo Ann, ed., ESL Through Content-area In-
struction: Mathematics, Science, Social Studies.
E n g l e w d Cliff, N.J.: Prentice Hall Regents, 1987.
13. Hart D., Sharon Lapkin, and Menill Swain. fir& and
Middle French Immersion Program Linguistic Out-
comes and Social Character. Toronto: Metropolitan
Tbronto School Board, 1987.
zyxwvuts
14. Hirsch, E. D. CulturalLiteracy: WhatEvery American
Needs to Know. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1987.
15. Hymes, Dell. On Communicative Competence.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971.
16. Jones, Beau Fly, Annemarie Sullivan Palinm, Donna
Sedergurg Ogle, and Meen Glynn Can; editors Stmtegic
TeachingandLeaming. Alexandria,VA Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1987.
17. Kmhen, Stephen. Principles and Practices in Second
Language Acqukition New York: -on Press, 1982.
18. Lambert, Wallace and G. Richard lbcker. Bilingual
Education of Children in the St. Lambert Experiment.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1972.
19. Linguistics Institute of Ireland. Spoken Inkh in Primary
Studies, Dublin, 1986.
275
20. Mitchell, Eveiyne. “Teaching Scientific and Technical
French at Napier College in Scotland? Proceedings of
the Fifth Annual Eastern Michigan Cortference on
Languages for Business and the Professions. Un-
published document, 1987.
21. Mohan, Bernard A. Language and Content. Reading,
MA. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1986.
22. Paulston, Christina Bratt. “Linguistic Competence and
Communicative Competence? TESOL Quarterly 8
(1974): 347-362.
23. ,and Mary Bruder. From Substitution to
Substance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1970.
24. Savignon, Sandra. Communicative Competence: An
ExpAment in Foreign Language Teaching.Philadelphix
The Center for Curriculum Development, 1972.
25. Schleppegrell, Mary. “The Older Language m e t ‘
ERIC Digest. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied
Lmguktics, 1987.
26. Short, Deborah. How to Integrate Language and Con-
tent Instmctiotr A Training Manual. Los Angeles:
Center for Language Education and Research, 1988.
27. Snow,Marguerite Ann and Donna M. Brinton. The Ad-
junct Model of Language Instructiotr Integrating
Lunguage and Content at the University. Center for
Language Educationand Research, TechnicalReport #8.
Los Angeles: UCLA, 1988.
28. Skinner,B. E ErbalBehavior.New York Appleton Cen-
tury Croft, 1957.
29. Spolsky, B., ed. ’‘Approachesto Language Testing? Ad-
vances in Language Zbting .Sen&, Vol. 2., Arlington, VA:
Center for Applied Linguistics, 1978.
30. Stem, H. H. “BilingualSchoolingand Foreign Language
Education: Some Implications of the Canadian Ex-
periments in French: in James E. Alatis, &., Interna-
tional Dimensions of BilingualEducation Georgetown
UniversityRoundtable. Washmgton, D.C.: Georgetown
University Press, 1978.
31. Stevens, F. SecondLanguage Learning in an Activity-
centeredProgram.MA. Thesis. Montreal:Department
of Educational Technology, Concordia University,
1976.
32. Swain, Menill and Sharon Lapkin. “Canadian Immer-
sion and Adult Second LanguageTeaching: What’s the
Connection?” Keynote paper presented at the First
OSU/MLJConfemceonResearchPerspectivesinAdult
Language Learning and Acquisition, Ohio State Univer-
sity, October, 1988.
33. Widdowson, Henry. “Notional-hctional Syllabus 1978:
Part IV”, in Charles H. Blatchford and Jacqueline
Schachter, eds., On Tesol78: EFL Policies, Program,
Practices. Washington, D.C.: TESOL, 1978.
34. Wilkins, D. A. Notional Syllabuses. Oxford Oxford
University Press, 1976.