Hassan Mohebbi, Ali Panahi Masjedlou

DOI Number
First page
Last page


Admittedly, no research has to date been conducted into the content-based language teaching (Herewith, CBLT) concerning learning both language and subject matter in Iranian EFL settings associated with Bilingual Education System (afterwards, BES), aiming at teenagers. The study hence addressed these general issues: An Investigation into the EFL learners’ (n=35) performance on grammar, vocabulary and subject matter related to sciences in CBLT. To these objectives, upon taking account of instrumentation, i.e., pre-test, materials for treatment, and a proficiency test as well as the reliability of the tests and field testing, post-tests pursued by a two-month treatment for 16 sessions associated with grammatical and lexical competence and content knowledge of the learners were administered. Statistically viewed, a Paired Samples t-test run on the learner’s pre-test/ post-test grammar performance was indicative of a statistically non-significant difference (t = -1.42, P= 0.19). Likewise, the results of t-test run on the learner’s pre-test/ post-test vocabulary performance displayed no statistically significant difference (t = -1.48, P= 0.14 ). On the contrary, with regard to the third research question, another Paired Samples t-test was conducted to find out their performance on sciences and the result reached a statistical significance (t = -1.32, p = < 0.000). Given the statistical evidence, generally viewed, teaching sciences to general-English non-proficient learners led to a high performance on content, but to a low grammar and vocabulary improvement. On the basis of the implications of the study, some notes are made: since BES is a country-wide program in some schools and also with a view to the absolute paucity of research in this field, the study inspires and demands further investigation into the ins and outs of BES.  As well as this, because the project targets at teenagers with poor general English proficiency, some extra-curriculum courses in conjunction with developing general English must be accounted for. On top of this, in a word, the far-fetched consequences of BES on the teenage learners and the required measures and reservations are further argued as relevant implications.


Content-Based Instruction, Subject Matter, General English Non-Proficient, Extra-curriculum

Full Text:



Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81–109.

Cammarata, L. (2010). Foreign language teachers’ struggle to learn content-based instruction. L2 Journal, 2, 89–118. Retrieved from: (March 2011).

Davison, C. (2006). Collaboration between ESL and content teachers: How do we know when we are doing it right? The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 454–75.

Hoare, P. (2007). A new revolution in China: English immersion. The ACIE Newsletter, 10 (February), 4–6.

Hoare, P. (2010). Content-based language teaching in China: Contextual influences on implemen-tation. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 31, 69–86.

Kong, S. (2008). Late immersion in Hong Kong: A pedagogical framework for integrating content-language teaching and learning. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 5, 107–32.

Kong, S. (2009). Content-based instruction: What can we learn from content-trained teachers’ and language-trained teachers’ pedagogies? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 229–63.

Kong, S. & Hoare, P. (2011). Cognitive content engagement in content based language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 15 (3), 307-324

Krashen, S.D. ( 1987). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Prentice-

Hall: Singapore.

Lazaruk, W. (2007). Linguistic, academic and cognitive benefits of French immersion. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 605–28.

Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lyster, R., & Ballinger, S. ( 2011).Content-Based Language Teaching: convergent Concerns across Divergent Contexts. Language Teaching Research, 15 (3), 279-288

Mohan, B. & Huang, J. (2002). Assessing the integration of language and content in a Mandarin as a foreign language classroom. Linguistics and Education, 13, 405–33.

Pajares, M. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–32.

Richardson Bruna, K., Vann, R., & Escudero, M. (2007). What’s language got to do with it? A case study of academic language instruction in a high school ‘English Learner Science’ class. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 37–54.

Richards, J.C., & Renandya, W.A. (2002).Methodology in language teaching: An anthology

of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sato, K. & Kleinsasser, R.C. (1999). Communicative Language Teaching (CLT): practical under-standings. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 494–517

Saunders, W.M., Goldenberg, C.N., & Gallimore, R. (2009). Increasing achievement by focusing grade level teams on improving classroom learning: A prospective, quasi-experimental study of Title 1 schools. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 1006–33.

Short, D.J., & Echevarría, J., & Richards-Tutor, C. ( 2011). Research on Academic Literacy Development in Sheltered Instruction classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 15 (3), 365-380

Snow, C., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 201–17.

Solis, A. (2008). Teaching for cognitive engagement: Materializing the promise of sheltered instruction. IDRA Newsletter. Retrieved from:

itive_Engagement (March 2011).

Stoller, F.L. (2004). Content-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum planning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 261–83.

Stoney, S. & Oliver, R. (1999). Can higher order thinking and cognitive engagement be enhanced with multimedia? Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-enhanced Learning, 1 (October). Retrieved from: (March 2011).

Swain, M. (1988). Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize second language learning. TESL Canada Journal, 6, 68–83.

Swain, M. (1996). Integrating language and content in immersion classrooms: Research perspec-tives. The Canadian Modern Language Journal, 52, 529–48.

Tan, M. (2011). Mathematics and Science Teachers' Beliefs and practices Regarding the Teaching of Language in Content Learning. Language Teaching Research, 15 (3), 325-242

Turnbull, M., Lapkin, S., & Hart, D. (2001). Grade 3 immersion students’ performance in literacy and mathematics: Province-wide results from Ontario (1989–1999). The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 9–26.

Voke, H. (2002). Student engagement: Motivating students to learn. Infobrief No. 28 (February). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved from: (March 2011).

Walker, C. & Tedick, D. (2000). The complexity of immersion education: Teachers address the issues. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 5–27.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

ISSN 2334-9182 (Print)
ISSN 2334-9212 (Online)