Theme-Based Instruction

In order to distinguish theme-based teaching from content-based, Brown distinguishes between “strong” and “weak” versions of content-based teaching (not to be confused in any way with “good” and “bad”). In the strong version, the primary purpose of a course is to instruct students in a subject-matter area, and language is of secondary and subordinate interest. The strong version is illustrated by the following examples:

•　Immersion programs for elementary-school children;

•　Sheltered English programs (mostly found at elementary-and secondary-school levels);

•　Writing across the curriculum (where writing skills in secondary schools and universities are taught within subject-matter areas like biology, history, art, etc.);

•　English for Specific Purposes (ESP) (e.g. for engineering, agriculture or medicine).

English for Specific Purposes (ESP) at the university level, for example, gathers engineering majors together in a course designed to teach terminology, concepts, and current issues in engineering. Because students are ESL students, they must of course learn this material in English, which the teacher is prepared to help them with. Immersion and sheltered programs, along with programs in writing across the curriculum, are similarly focused.

A weak form of content-based teaching actually places an equal value oncontent and language objectives. While the curriculum, to be sure, is organized around subject-matter area, both students and teachers are fully aware that language skills do not occupy a subordinate role. Students have no doubt chosen to take a course or curriculum because their language skills need improvement, and they are now able to work toward that improvement without being battered with linguistically based topics. The ultimate payoff is that their language skills are indeed enhanced, but through focal attention to topic and peripheral attention to language.

This weak version is actually very practical and very effective in many instructional settings. It typically manifests itself in what has come to be called theme-based or topic-based teaching. Theme-based instruction provides an alternative to what would otherwise be traditional language classes by structuring a course around themes or topics. Theme-based curricula can serve the multiple interests of students in a classroom and can offer a focus on content while still adhering to institutional needs for offering a language course per se. So, for example, an intensive English course for intermediate pre-university students might deal with topics of current interest such as public health, environment awareness, world economics, etc. In the classroom students read articles or chapters, view video programs, discuss issues, propose solutions, and carry out writing assignments on a given theme. English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in a university is an appropriate instance of Theme-Based Instruction.

The major principles underlying both Theme-Based and Content-Based Instruction are:

•　Automaticity;

•　Meaningful learning;

•　Intrinsic motivation;

•　Communicative competence.

These principles are well served by Theme-Based Instruction and/or by courses that are successfully able to get students excited and interested in some topic, issue, idea, or problem.

Numerous current ESL textbooks, especially at the intermediate to advanced levels, offer theme-based courses of study. Challenging topics in these textbooks engage the curiosity and increase motivation of students as they grapple with anarray of real-life issue ranging from simple to complex and also improve their linguistic skills.

Consider just one of an abundance of topics that have been used as themes through which language is taught: environmental awareness and action. Here are some possible theme-based activities:

•　Use environmental statistics and facts for classroom reading, writing, discussion, and debate;

•　Carry out research and writing projects;

•　Have students create their own environmental awareness material;

•　Arrange field trips;

•　Conduct simulations games.

(Brown, 2001: 237-238)