1.3 Why Is a Content-Driven Model of CBI Not the S...
It is clear from the two brief examples above that college students are most likely far from being proficient in language. They still have much to learn about English grammar, not as a system of abstract forms and structures, but as a creative resource for making meaning in academic and disciplinary contexts. This knowledge is critical to the development of advanced literacy, i.e., more sophisticated reading and writing skills that enable critical engagement with the complex texts of academic disciplines (Schleppegrell & Colombi, 2002). A content-driven curriculum model of CBI, or the so-called "strong" form of CBI (Stoller, 2004), may thus not be the best solution to the problems Chinese students are facing in developing advanced literacy. The model promotes systematic building of disciplinary content through English in such disciplines as humanities, law, and economics. It is, as 蔡基刚 (2013) pointed out, fundamentally a kind of English-medium instruction (EMI). Such a model may be justified for content experts (e.g., biologists, historians, economists, mathematicians, legal scholars) who prefer to teach disciplinary content (their main concern) in English (instead of Chinese) in their respective home departments (see Hu, 2019 for a review of issues related to the implementation of EMI in China), but it is neither appropriate nor feasible for English teachers for reasons discussed below.
First, English students in China (i.e., those majoring in English) are expected to become experts in language, that is, to be proficient users of language (e.g., as readers, writers, and translators). This is (or should be) the primary reason for their decision to enroll in the English department. Their main goal is not to become disciplinary experts outside English; for if that were the case, they should have chosen to enroll in a content discipline outside subject English, such as physics, accounting, or sociology. For students of non-English majors, a content-driven CBI, with its focus on content, does not address their needs in taking English courses, which are to develop English language proficiency and improve English literacy abilities in service of their disciplinary learning.
Second, what constitutes content in a content-driven CBI is a highly controversial issue. Scholars have disagreed on the scope and depth of content for English students, with most favoring a humanities focus (e.g., literature, culture, history) whereas others arguing for inclusion of topics spanning many academic disciplines such as science, law, fine arts, and business. Foregrounding the humanities can limit students' exposure to other genres and varieties of English, making them inadequately prepared for a wide array of career opportunities beyond the humanities. On the other hand, it is practically impossible to help students develop content expertise across multiple disciplines during their four years of undergraduate studies; nor are English teachers equipped for this work.(https://www.daowen.com)
Third, English teachers are, first and foremost, language teachers. The vast majority of them have little training in academic disciplines outside subject English. Their expertise is language, not content areas. Language is what they do best and the primary reason for their very existence. Asking them to assume the added responsibility of systematically building students' disciplinary content knowledge outside subject English is not only unrealistic but also unnecessary. Their mission is to prepare literary scholars, linguists, translators, English teachers, and other language service professionals. A content-driven CBI, as it is currently being proposed and implemented in China, will only increase English teachers' anxiety and resistance because they are, in most cases, not equipped to help students build vast content knowledge, a task that they believe (correctly) is more suitable for disciplinary experts outside subject English.
Finally, although cross-disciplinary collaboration between English teachers and content experts has sometimes been suggested as a promising solution to the current language-content integration dilemma, research (e.g., Creese, 2002) has shown that in such a partnership, the role of language teachers is often marginalized, with the consequence that students benefited minimally from the experience. In fact, students are often short-changed in their language learning and literacy development in these collaborative efforts. Furthermore, the institutional culture, organizational structure, and reward mechanism in China's universities and colleges do not seem to encourage such collaborations, making the proposal exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, to implement.