Content-Based Pedagogy is distinguished by its focus on the concurrent learning of specific academic content and related language use skills (Brinton et al., 2011; Cenoz, 2015; Cenoz, & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2015; Genesee & Lindholm-Leary, 2013; Tedick & Wesely, 2015). Its chief concern is “the integration of content learning with language teaching aims” (Brinton et al., 2011: ix). Some CBI models prioritize language learning over content learning, other models prioritize mastery of content over language acquisition, and others seek to find a balance between language and content (Brinton et al., 2011). What these models all have in common, however, is that CBI focuses on using the target language instead of learning about the target language (Hernández, 2003).

The roots of cbi are often located in the Canadian immersion programs which were introduced in the late 1970’s (Cenoz & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2015; Cloud, Genesee, & Hamadan, 2000; Pérez-Cañado, 2012; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2008). Some scholars have suggested that the true origins of content-based teaching can be traced back much further (Brinton et al., 2011; Mehisto, Marsh & Frigols, 2008; Tejada-Molina, Pérez & Luqe-Argulló, 2005). For instance, St. Augustine emphasized the importance of learning content during the course of language acquisition (Brinton et al., 2011). Within the Mexican context, it has been suggested that cbi was implemented during the Conquest: indigenous groups were captured and forced to learn the language of their new overlords while simultaneously having to make sense of new information and ways of thinking (Foster, 2007). The exclusive use of español was enforced by the Spanish in order to achieve colonialist goals, in particular the dissemination of Catholic doctrine and the introduction of new trades (Arriaga, 1978).

Advocates of CBI argue that the approach leads to student gains in both language ability and content mastery. Hernandez (2003), for example, highlights how CBI promotes L2 acquisition: “…for students learning in the language rather than about the language, effective communication is interactive, authentic, and meaningful, with ample opportunities to hear and respond in the target language [practice] and to get feedback ...” (p. 126). A number of studies have suggested that Content-Based Pedagogy also strengthens content learning (Brinton et al., 2011; Cenoz, 2015; Cenoz, & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2015; Crandall, 1993; Genesee & Lindholm-Leary, 2013; Stoller, 2004; Tedick & Wesely, 2015).

cbi supporters believe that the approach’s effectiveness originates in the way the brain processes information (Field, 2003; May-Landy, 2000). According to cognitive research, the brain stores information in networks (Field, 2003); the more connections there are amongst these networks, and the stronger these connections are, the better information is learned and retained (Mugler & Landbeck, 2000). cbi is believed to build strong connections between content and language centers; from a theoretical perspective, learning content and language simultaneously should allow students to become better at both.

Practically speaking, achieving the approach’s theoretical aims in the classroom implies the synchronization of numerous, interdependent constituents. Content knowledge, educational context, language use, pedagogic materials, student characteristics, and teacher competence (inter alia) must all be considered and somehow harmonized (Cenoz, 2015; Cenoz et al., 2014; Coyle, 2008; Pérez-Cañado, 2012). Disagreement in the literature about the effectiveness of CBI attests to the complexity of this task. While some studies have substantiated CBI’s pedagogic utility (Boivin & Razali, 2013; Corrales and Maloof, 2009; Lafayette and Buscaglia 1985; Pessoa et al., 2007), others have foregrounded potential complications (Cenoz et al., 2014; Coyle, 2008; Doughty & Varela, 1998; Pérez-Cañado, 2012). It has been argued, for instance, that a significant problem with the approach has to do with finding teachers who are qualified in both language and content (Lara-Herrera, 2015). In some CBI classrooms, students are provided with both a language teacher and a content teacher, who work as partners (e.g., in certain “sheltered” models). But financial realities often make such schemes untenable. In situations in which it is only possible to employ a single teacher, hiring decisions often privilege language ability over content knowledge. In the schools we investigated, there has been a distinct tendency to “repurpose” language teachers as CBI instructors (no doubt in the belief that second language teachers can learn new content more readily than content teachers can learn new second languages). In such cases, instructors need to invest substantial amounts of time in order to become familiar with new areas of knowledge (Brown, 2004; Cenoz, 2015; Cenoz et al., 2014). The problem of finding qualified CBI teachers is especially pronounced in Mexico, where many teachers lack a solid education in either second language teaching or in specific content areas.

Another potential problem stems from the fact that Content-Based Pedagogy is not a unified, clearly articulated teaching model. It is, rather, an amorphous and changing set of theoretical and pedagogic propositions. There are, for instance, no universally accepted guidelines for how teachers should integrate language and content, or clear standards elucidating the degree to which the l2 should be used in the classroom (Cenoz et al., 2014; Coyle, 2008; Doughty & Varela, 1998; Pérez-Cañado, 2012). CBI does not possess a “rule book” of best practices. There are, in fact, very few CBI books at all. Whereas English as a Second Language (ESL) materials are generally available, instructors must often devote considerable time to finding appropriate, useful information on content subjects. This can be especially difficult for Mexican teachers, who often do not have ready access to reliable information in English. Moreover, once discovered, such information usually requires substantial modification in order to render it suitable to the level of students’ content and language abilities.

The findings of the current study are based on data elicited through qualitative research techniques. Qualitative research (qr) is a method which endeavors to understand persons, groups of individuals, research problems, and/or phenomenon (Labuschangne, 2003). qr is particularly effective in attaining data concerning the values, opinions, behaviors, and social contexts of particular social groups (Mack, et al., 2005). According to Labuschangne (2003),

Qualitative methods typically produce a wealth of detailed data about a small number of people and cases. Qualitative data provides depth and detail through direct quotation and careful description of situations, events, interactions and observed behaviors. (p. 1)

A challenge for investigators working within a QR paradigm is that they must subdue their own conceptions of the world when interpreting data so that their personal beliefs do not taint participants’ personal understandings of a given phenomenon and consequently contaminate data and findings. Wiersma (1995) explains this issue:

“[In QR] researchers do not impose their assumptions, limitations, and delimitations or definitions, or research designs upon emerging data. The researcher’s role is to record what he or she observes and/or collects from subjects … ‘Reality’ exists as the subjects see it.” (pp. 211-212).

Data acquired from Question 1 (i.e., “Would you recommend teaching English through CBI?”) indicated that six of the eight (i.e., 75 percent) participants would recommend CBI to fellow teachers. However, this support was weak, tentative, and primarily focused on the narrow benefits of CBI as a way to increase vocabulary uptake. Participant 3’s (henceforth P3³) response was typical:

P3: Yeah, I think it’s a great idea to implement it [CBI]. It is a good idea to link language and content because of the different vocabulary through curricular context that could be learned. In regular English classes you just do not see this type of language.

Other participant responses also foregrounded the importance of tying vocabulary to real contexts instead of having students learn lexis in isolation. For instance, P4 commented that language and content “… are connected and need each other.” P7 suggested that a greater amount of vocabulary could be learned when it was studied within real-world contexts. These conclusions harmonize with research that suggests that students who learn within a CBI framework acquire a deeper knowledge of second languages than traditional ELT students (Corrales & Maloof, 2009; Lafayette & Buscaglia, 1985).

Apart from vocabulary, however, support for CBI was heavily caveated (see below) or completely absent. P1 and P8, for instance, voiced a number of reasons that they would not recommend CBI to fellow teachers. P1 reflected on her own experiences as a student learning through CBI. In her view, academic subjects that are already challenging are made even more challenging when learned in a foreign language. This is a common perspective. Lara-Herrera (2015), for instance, investigated 11 Mexican secondary school students enrolled in a CBI course about the history of Mexico. He found that the students were frustrated by the experience. As one participant noted, trying to learn both content and language simultaneously is a sure way to ensure that neither is learned adequately.

P1 also lamented the fact that she did not receive sufficient training in CBI before being asked to teach. A number of researchers have identified instructor training as crucially important to the success of content based programs (Pérez-Cañado, 2014; Pessoa et al., 2007; Tedick & Wesely, 2015). However, CBI training programs and training materials are so scarce as to be essentially non-existent in Mexico.

P8 identified a number of problems with Content Based Instruction, including a lack of support from school authorities, insufficient technological resources in the classroom, and no access to published material which might support CBI. Above all, P8 perceived an unbridgeable chasm between the pedagogically progressive tenets of CBI and the static traditionalism of the Mexican classroom. Pedagogic conservatism has been identified as one of the main weaknesses of the Mexican educational system (Davies, 2009). As Sulzar (2013) notes, in the majority of Mexican public educational institutions, “…the idea of less hegemonic learning environments remains mostly an alien concept” (p. 121).

Study participants detailed a number of advantages offered by Content Based Instruction: (1) CBI enhances learning speed; (2) language acquisition is more natural; (3) learners become more fluent in the target language; (4) language is more meaningful; (5) vocabulary learning is richer and lexis is made more salient to the learners. These benefits are in-line with a number of studies that support the view that content based pedagogy fosters academic development (Brinton et al., 2011; Cenoz, 2015; Cenoz, & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2015; Crandall, 1993; Genesee & Lindholm-Leary, 2013; Stoller, 2004;Tedick & Wesely, 2015).

However, upon further questioning, it became apparent that most participants had not seen these benefits first-hand in their own classrooms. Instead, they saw these advantages conjecturally, as benefits that should spring from CBI. The only benefit that the participants had observed directly had to do with vocabulary. Enhanced vocabulary learning was identified as the most important benefit of CBI. Participants 1, 2, 3 and 7 highlighted the ways in which CBI promoted vocabulary gains among their students. For instance, P3 mentioned that by learning through content, students were able to expand their vocabulary about other cultures. P7 noted that -generally speaking- as students begin to increase their vocabulary size, they are able to use more complex language and express themselves better.

The participants generally attributed their students’ lexical improvements to the fact that CBI offers contact with the target language that is both wider and deeper than is possible in traditional ELT classrooms. P7 explained lexical gains more specifically, focusing on students’ exposure to English-Spanish cognates:

P7: I think that one of the main advantages is that students learn a lot of new vocabulary that is related to the subject as well to other vocabulary that is similar in their first language … What I mean is that there are many words that are said the same in the two languages; for example, in history students learn words such as … concentration camps (campos de concentración), indulgences-(indulgencia), the Crusades (Las Cruzadas) … you know, important events that happened in history.

Mugford (2007) argues that cognates can help students to “…improve vocabulary recognition and production strategies… [as well as] encourage students to develop their own language learning strategies” (p. 140). In this case, P7’s students apparently used cognates as a learning strategy for language acquisition, and thus accelerated their language learning.

Participants offered a number of challenges that make CBI difficult to implement in their particular teaching contexts. These included (1) time constraints; (2) their students’ lack of English language proficiency; (3) student impatience with the slow pace of learning; (4) lack of student motivation; (5) student absenteeism; and (6) a pronounced lack of published materials for different content subjects.

P1’s response regarding time constraints, for instance, is representative of participant perceptions:

P1: Well, in this school, the time might not be enough for students to learn the language and to obtain a good level I think. Probably students might need a little longer than two and a half semesters in order to have a good English level.

Both P4 and P7 mentioned that many students feel frustrated trying to learn through a foreign language, and that this frustration can often turn into a lack of motivation:

P7: I think one principle problem with cbi it is that sometimes you have to find information in internet that it is difficult to understand. On many occasions I have to investigate what means the word in English. So I think if it was difficult for me, then for students I think it is more difficult; that is why they are not motivated to learn [from this approach]. [sic]

One participant, P8, complained that CBI’s focus on developing critical thinking skills and student autonomy conflicted with local cultural norms to such a degree that teaching became problematic:

P8: I think that one major disadvantage is that sometimes schools want you to change things in order to suit their beliefs. … What I meant to say is that when I was teaching history I had to be careful because the book I used for this subject promoted students to arrive at their own conclusions through critical thinking but the school always practically ordered me to base historical events on religious beliefs. … I remember when we were discussing Martin Luther, the school wanted me to say that he was wrong for rebelling against the Catholic religion which is something that I don’t believe in…nor is it my responsibility to impose any type of religious beliefs in students, especially when the book is designed to stimulate critical thinking and for students to draw their own conclusions.

One of the requirements of any teaching approach is that it fits within the norms and expectations of the sociocultural context in which it is employed. As Kumaravadivelu (2001) observes, “all pedagogy, like all politics, is local … to ignore local exigencies is to ignore lived experiences” (p. 539). Quoting Coleman (1996), Kumaravadivelu argues that those pedagogies which disregard lived experience can ultimately prove to be “so disturbing for those affected by them -- so threatening to their belief systems -- that hostility is aroused and learning becomes impossible” (p. 539).

The fourth question was asked in order to probe participant beliefs concerning the nature of language learning within a CBI model. The participants largely agreed that for language learning to be successful, it is necessary to have (1) teachers who are experts in both language and content; (2) suitable material which focuses on specific content in the target language; (3) students who are willing to work with cbi; (4) peer interaction (e.g., through projects and team work); (5) an environment which encourages participation in English; and (6) different types of input.

An important theme that emerged was that students require both a steady diet of varied input and opportunities to interact in the target language in order to build language and content knowledge and to develop learning skills. According to the participants, input methods may include audio recordings in the target language, such as radio broadcasts; music with lyrics provided; news programs, such as the BBC or CNN; videos, such as documentaries; and newspaper and magazine articles. Interaction, according to the participants, involves building a classroom environment that encourages communication, experimentation with the language, and abundant opportunities to practice.

The importance of input and interaction is generally assumed within most ESL classrooms and is supported by research. The idea that input is critical to language acquisition, for instance, has been a central tenet of ELT since at least the time of the Reform movement in the 19^th century, and was famously enshrined in Krashen’s Monitor Model (Krashen, 1987). Interaction is also widely viewed as a sine qua non of successful language learning, and is the foundational concept informing most communicative approaches. However, in Mexico, where traditional teaching methods (i.e., pedagogical approaches that are transmissional, teacher-centered, and forms-focused) continue to be the norm, many students and teachers are unaccustomed to authentic contact with the L2 or with the idea of meaningful interaction. CBI approaches, then, which require both input and interaction, are a radical departure from pedagogical conventions.

Another key finding concerns participants’ views on their own abilities to teach content. Participants unanimously agreed that CBI teachers must be equally expert at language and content, a view that is echoed in much of the literature (Boivin & Razali, 2013; Cenoz et al, 2014; Horwitz, 2005; Lancaster, 2012). However, the participants generally viewed themselves first and foremost as language teachers and saw content instruction outside the field of ESL as a challenge. It has been noted that, broadly speaking, EFL programs tend to privilege language teaching over content teaching. As Stoller (2002) notes, “many language programs endorse [content-based instruction] but only use course content as a vehicle for helping students master language skills” (p. 112). On the other hand, and again broadly speaking, immersion programs tend to privilege content learning over language acquisition. Cammarata and Tedick (2012) argue that “Research on immersion teaching has consistently shown that immersion teachers tend to focus on subject matter content at the expense of language teaching” (p. 251). Grabe (1997) states that immersion instructors “…become excited about interesting and appealing content and overlook the language exploitation aspects of instruction.” (p. 93). For CBI to be successful, there must be a balance between content and language (Boivin & Razali, 2013; Cenoz et al, 2014). Within the schools investigated in the current study, however, CBI programs clearly exist within an EFL paradigm. This fact creates another hurdle to the approach’s effective implementation.

Although at the beginning of the interviews, 6 out of 8 participants reported that they would recommend CBI, by the end of the interviews, there was almost universal agreement that the approach does not fit the current realities of the Mexican educational context. Table 1 presents typical responses from each of the participants.

Table 1:
Description of Overall Experience Using CBI in the Classroom

Despite, 6 out of the eight participants saying that they would recommend CBI, at the end all of the eight participants described that applying CBI was a difficult process to manage in one way or another.

The overall aim of our research was to discover whether the participants, who learned English through CBI and now teach English using the same approach, would recommend Content Based Learning to their professional peers.

The major finding of this research is that the study participants view CBI in largely negative terms. The participants were aware of CBI’s theoretical benefits (i.e., the approach may, under certain conditions, enhance learning speed, encourage fluency, and make language more personally meaningful to students) and remarked on its ability to assist in vocabulary growth. However, overall, the respondents reported that CBI was not an appropriate pedagogical approach within the specific institutional and cultural contexts of their own schools. In particular, seven key obstacles to successful CBI implantation were identified.

1. 1. Participants’ complained about their lack of training. Research points to the importance of teacher education and training in making CBI effective (Pérez-Cañado, 2014; Pessoa et al., 2007; Tedick and Wesely, 2015). However, in the cases we examined, none of the participants had received any formal training in Content Based Instruction before being asked to begin their instruction.
2. 2. The participants pointed out that their lack of knowledge about content made it difficult for them to use the target language appropriately or to plan their classes well. Teachers in the study remarked that some academic subjects are difficult even in Spanish; to teach these same subjects in English results in frustration for both students and teachers.
3. 3. The participants’ poor language skills was also highlighted. One participant explained that content language in English was difficult even for her, the teacher.
4. 4. Another participant expressed his frustration with the lack of support he received from his educational institution. Two of the eight participants blamed bad school “planning” or “meddling” as barriers to the success of CBI. There was general agreement that school administrators lacked sufficient knowledge about CBI.
5. 5. Half of the participants stressed that their students were dissatisfied with and bored by CBI. Frustration with the approach lead to a lack of motivation among students. In some cases, student failure challenged their sense of self-worth. Participants reported that their students often made a conscious decision not to use new language or to reject CBI teaching methods as a way of asserting their own social identity (see Despagne, 2010; Moore, 1999; Violand-Sanchez, 1995). Many such students stopped attending class or dropped out of the program entirely. Bailey et al. (1999) states that one of the most common strategies used by adolescents who do not want to engage with academic material is avoidance, and absenteeism and dropping out are powerful forms of avoidance. Indeed, defeat in the face of CBI was not entirely limited to students. One participant explained that he eventually abandoned CBI due to lack of progress and student rejection of the approach. Ultimately, the program was abandoned at his school.
6. 6. Participants also explained how for many of their students, the content was not relevant. Researchers warn of the negative effects of imposing unsuitable topics, themes or content on learners (Despagne, 2010; Silva, 1997; Smyth, 2006).
7. 7. Participants also complained that CBI requires too much time in terms of preparation. One participant mentioned that CBI entails a constant process of adaption and re-adaption. Brinton et al. (2011) argues that successful CBI programs require ongoing adjustment and redesign. However, participants in the study reported feeling under pressure to meet educational goals and deadlines, and did not feel they have the luxury to fine-tune their CBI lessons.

The current research is, of course, limited by its small sample size; findings, while revealing, cannot be generalized beyond the present study and should be seen solely as a point of departure for further investigation.

While a great deal of research into content based pedagogy has been conducted (Boivin & Razali, 2013; Brinton, Snow & Wesche, 2011;Cenoz, 2015; Cenoz, Genesse & Gorter, 2014; Cenoz, & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2015; Cloud, Genesee, & Hamadan, 2000; Corrales and Maloof, 2009; Genesee & Lindholm-Leary, 2013; Hernández, 2003; Lafayette and Buscaglia 1985; Lancaster, 2012; Lara-Herrera, 2015; Lin, 2015; Mehisto, Marsh & Frigols, 2008; Pérez-Cañado, 2012, 2013, 2014; Pérez Cañado & Ráez Padilla, 2014; Pessoa et al., 2007; Ruiz de Zarobe & Cenoz, 2015; Stoller, 2004; Tedick & Wesely, 2015; Tejada-Molina, Pérez & Luqe-Argulló, 2005) more research continues to be necessary. It is still unclear, for instance, if content based approaches actually lead to better learning outcomes than traditional language and content practices. In Mexico, where so little research into CBI has been conducted, further investigations are particularly imperative. The Mexican government continues to look for ways to improve the country’s educational system, which currently lags behind other developed nations’. As policy makers search for a path forward, they require reliable information about what works and does not work within the Mexican context. As Lasagabaster (2008) points out, policy decisions should always be “… supported by empirical evidence. … the more research data there is available, the more theoretically sound [any] decision will be.” (p 40). The current study has been an attempt to meaningful contribute to the growing pool of research data concerning Content-Based Pedagogy.