Without undermining teaching options, one may clearly state that "intelligent eclecticism' must have limits.  Various teaching approaches, methods, techniques, and systems would appear to be incompatible, and some are workable only if firmly established as the foundation of course design.  Content-based instruction (CBI) would likely be included in this group, as would Suggestopedia, The Silent Way, and others (this is not to suggest that ideas from these cannot be utilized in the eclectic classroom, see Dickey, 2000, for more on this issue).  Unlike these other innovations in ELT, however, content-based instruction has yet to have established a clear definition of what it is, and what it is not.  This investigator has often wondered whether such lack of clarity is not to the benefit of some: granting considerable freedom to those who wish not to be constrained by rigid boundaries, yet profiting from the use of a term well-treated in the professional and scholarly literature.

     This investigation is focused on Asian secondary/tertiary school EFL learners and their local classrooms, as the elementary English topic is currently under

intense scrutiny in many Asian nations and thus merits individual attention.  The conventions ES/FL (English as a second or foreign language) and ELT (English Language Teaching) are used throughout.
 

Defining CBI
    As Snow (1991) observes, "[t]hroughout the history of second language teaching, the word 'content' has had many different interpretations" (p. 315).

    Kasper offers a very generalized definition, a useful starting point:

Content-based ESL courses present students with content-based materials in a meaningful, contextualized form in which the primary focus is on the acquisition of information (1997, [p. 2]).

    Hutchinson and Waters (1984) contrast CBI with more traditional forms of instruction:

[i]n a content-based approach, the focus is on exploiting the information conveyed by a text.  In a language-based approach, the text is used as a source for language exercises" (p. 113).

    Within the confines of an academic institution, "content" has often been construed to be the subject matter of "mainstream" courses, those courses that are required of students regardless of proficiency in the local community's language.  Thus, in Kachru's (1985) English "inner ring" lands, a content-based ESL course might use materials from math or science as content for English instruction.  This is consistent with the definition offered by Brinton, Snow, & Wessche (1989) in their much cited work Content-based second language instruction, in which they define CBI as the "concurrent teaching of academic subject matter and second language skills (p. 2).  An "adjunct" course such as this would appear to have much in common with the ESP approach (Snow, 1991, p. 315), where the special purpose is science, or math, or any other mainstream course content (as opposed to "business English" or other special courses ordinarily taught outside of secondary or tertiary institutions, and sometimes known as VESL--vocational English).  Here in Asia, Stewart (1996) offers a similar focus, based upon the Canadian experience with ES/FL.  It is important to note, however, that there is not agreement on whether such content must accurately reflect current learning requirements in "mainstream" courses or whether it merely is derived from mainstream course areas.  Murphey's 1997 article appears to suggest that content is not linked to current lessons in other courses, as each of the six week modules focus on different topic areas.  On the other hand, McGroarty (1991) indicates that language and the mainstream course are inextricably tied when she states that

[c]ontent-based language instruction aims to promote conceptual mastery of a certain subject along with the language skills necessary to deal effectively with the subject (p. 381).

    We thus may conclude, like Stryker and Leaver (1997), that CBI is "more a philosophy than a methodology" (p. 3).  Snow (1991, p. 326) offers that CBI "is not so much a method as a reorientation to what is meant by 'content' in language teaching."
 
Instructional focus
    It has been stated that in CBI, students "must be aware of the fact that they are studying English and that . . . [the topic] is just a suitable material to be used during the course" (Abramov, 1999).  Such a dogmatic approach does not appear to be supported in the literature.  On the other hand, the general themes of Krashen's Input hypothesis (1992) would appear to suggest that so long as input is not too far beyond the students' ability, their English will improve whether or not it is explicitly a language-learning course.  While in "mainstream" courses do ES/FL students learn no English?

    Short (1994) offers a more moderate approach.  "The language educator maintains a primary focus on language skill development but has a subsidiary goal of preparing students for the mainstream classroom" (p. 582).  However, as will be discussed more extensively below, mainstreaming students is often not an objective of English-medium instruction in Asia.

    Allwright & Bailey (1990, p. 162) voice concern that focusing on current mainstream course content may be detrimental to language learning.  Students may not wish to study the mainstream course further in the English class, and such content learning may not match their learning expectation, both of which may undermine their receptivity to the language learning experience.

Types of CBI
    Much of the focus on content-based instruction has been based on writing instruction, where students are asked to develop composition skills through papers written on topics related to "content subjects."  Shih (1986) provided an early classification of approaches specific to content-based writing courses that provides a helpful outline of the issue:

1. Topic-centered "modules" or minicourses (attention to all four language skills) . . .
2. Content-based academic writing courses . . .
3. Content-centered English-for-special-purposes (ESP) courses, that is, field-specific "sheltered" subject matter courses (multiskill) . . .

4. Composition or multiskill English-for-academic-purposes (EAP) courses/tutorials as adjuncts to designated university content courses . . .
5. Individualized help with course-related writing at times of need . . .  (pp. 632-33).

    Pally (2000) presents another variation: "sustained content" instruction.  She observes that in order to succeed, "students must study content that is complex enough and enduring enough" to develop the full complement of academic skills, as well as to understand the subject matter of the course (p. 9).

    Foreign language immersion is the extreme form of content-based language instruction, a form which is surprisingly left unaddressed by Shih.  As Richard-Amato (1996, p. 300) describes, in immersion programs most if not all students are from the language majority population, and are placed in content-area classes in which a foreign language is the medium for communication.  This is true both in the situation in Canada discussed by Richard-Amato and in EFL environments.  Duff (1995), in her discussion of immersion classrooms in Hungary, points out the purpose of immersion classes:

[u]nlike some task-based discussions in EFL language classes, group discussions or student lectures . . . were not designed to simply provide oral practice in English for its own sake.  That is not the intent of content-based or immersion instruction.  Material had to be mastered . . . (p. 529).

    Also of interest is the nature and duration of instruction in each content area.  The literature does not identify a typical period of instruction for a particular content area.  One popular concept is topic-centered "modules" or minicourses.  The six week periods offered by Murphey (1997) would not appear

to be an insufficient length to cover major language aspects of a "mainstream" course area, but what of others who race through a topic each week (or each hour)?  Short (1993) states that "[i]n content-based language instruction, language teachers use content topics, rather grammar rules or vocabulary lists, as the scaffolding for instruction" (p. 629).  TESOL Inc.'s own teacher resource books New Ways in Content-based Instruction (Brinton & Master, 1997) and New Ways in Teaching English at the Secondary Level (Short, 1999) are "recipe books" of classroom activities, apparently design to assist in the instruction of specific topics or skills, but these do not indicate that the particular issue to be addressed is extensively covered.  Brinton & Master specifically include "theme-based L2 courses" (p. v) in their introductory message.  Snow (1991, p. 318) reports:

selected topics or themes provide the content for the [theme-based] ESL/EFL class.  From these topics, the ESL/EFL teacher extracts language activities which follow naturally from the content area.  Thus, a unit on "advertising" might engage the students in a variety of activities such as designing and administrering a marketing survey . . ..

    In the adjunct model, there is close coordination between the ES/FL instructor and the linked or "twinned" mainstream content course (taught by the "regular" teacher).  As Snow (1991) observes, "the language class becomes content-based in the sense that the students' needs in the content class dictate the activities in the language class" (p. 319).

not adequately describe the motivations for student learning .  It is valuable to note here Furmanovsky's observation concerning content courses taught via English as a Foreign Language in Asia.  These courses
are necessarily different from so-called content-based courses offered to ESL students in overseas [ESL] universities.  The latter are designed for intermediate and upper intermediate students who hope to enter overseas junior colleges or universities . . . (1997, [1]).

    Asian students, studying in an English-medium course, are unlikely to enroll in North American or other English-medium universities, and more likely to have lower skills in English.  An alternative and complementary approach to course classification, more likely to match the realities of Asian educational systems, is based on the learning aims of the students (not school administrations) and the events within the classroom.  Three general classifications are offered:

* Academic skills courses,
* Topical courses, and
* Substantive courses.

    Topical CBI courses are perhaps the least "structured" of these models, and in many cases, closest to what is actually occurring in many classrooms labeled "content-based classes."  These are the classrooms where activities, themes, topics of the day/week, tasks and short-term projects, and other events occur alongside or within a more traditional syllabus, whether grammar/lexis-based, functional-notional, or other.  Topical courses would be identified in Shih's first category, and Snow's third.  Content-based courses that are directed towards any of three particular language skills, listening, speaking, or reading, are likely topical.  (The fourth skill, writing, has the highest likelihood of inclusion in academic skills or substantive CBI courses.  It has been suggested (Dickey, 2000) that computer/internet English may be a fifth language skill, any course directed to this skill would also likely be included in language-focused studies.)  Topical CBI courses in Asia generally provide language skills development without any particular ties to the students' major fields of study, or to any "general education" courses.  The content is freestanding, developed within the course without specific reference to other classes the students may be taking simultaneously or in the future; thus topical CBI courses are not adjuncts.  There are few cases of adjunct classes in Asia, other than at the few "International Universities" and bilingual studies programs.  The future does not look bright for adjunct CBI in this region.

    Substantive courses have been in place in Asia for decades, placed within most every academic institution's foreign language program.  Courses such as literature, drama, public speaking, and culture have often not been taught in the foreign language to a significant extent, but the purpose of studies is nevertheless to improve student comprehension and appreciation of, and skills in, the foreign language.  With increased numbers of "near-native speaker" instructors available throughout Asia and the overall foreign language competency of university-level learners higher than ever before, it is likely that these types of courses will become routinely taught fully in the foreign language (foreign language medium instruction), and increasingly available in other fields as well, though perhaps with in-class supports, such as allowing student questions in the L1, which the instructor answers in a simplified L2.  The in-class supports make such instruction very like the "sheltered classes" found in Shih's third category and Snow's fourth.  An important distinction for sheltered classes is that the learning objectives are modified from that of "mainstream" courses, to incorporate language learning objectives along with lowered "substantive" objectives.  In the Asian environment, the learning objectives of any sheltered class must be compared to a class offered in the students' L1.  Substantive CBI will continue to grow in the overseas environment, in contrast to Raimes' projection of the ESL environment.

It is interesting to note here that the content specific to English courses--language, culture, and literature--is largely rejected in favor of the subject matter of the other fields the ESL students are studying (Raimes, 1991, p. 411).

    A fourth learning-based type of CBI course, not included in the above list, is survival skills focused.  This type of course is of very little relevance to students not planning to visit or study in an ESL land, and is more frequently offered by private language programs or as part of general language skills

program.  Not surprisingly, this survival skills component makes up a large proportion of the materials within both New Ways books.  Another CBI area, similarly non-academic, is Vocational English (VESL).
 

    It would be impossible to redirect over 30 years of discussions through just one paper, and this investigator has made no attempts to do so.  Instead, a different perspective of how courses could be classified, with particular relevance

to the Asian environment, has been offered.  It is suggested that educational administrators and teachers who consider their course offerings through this perspective will better meet the expectations of their students, and better prepare the students for the world outside the classroom.  It is further hoped that this paper will spur further discussions on the future directions of CBI in the Asian classroom.