In the US, content-based instruction (CBI) shares similarities with CLIL since CBI also promotes students to learn target languages through content areas. However, Baker and Wright (2021) stated that in the US, CBI focused on helping language minority students gain proficiency in English. 

When implementing CBI in school, students may put more focus on the content rather than maintaining accuracy in the use of the target language. Also, when there is a new immigrant student in the classroom with limited knowledge of the target language, English, this student may struggle to understand the contents, even though he or she may know the knowledge in their native language. When using the CLIL approach, the schools may not be able to find qualified teachers as well as materials to teach both academic content and language skills in the foreign languages the schools aim to offer. Moreover, CLIL may cause confusion for teachers on what to assess and evaluate. Will the assessment aim to measure students' knowledge of academic content or language proficiency?

Reference:

Baker, C. & Wright, W. (2021). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Multilingual Matters.

While the outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can be generalized to a larger population, student samples in bilingual education are typically small and subjective, making it difficult for them to represent a larger population.

RCTs are mostly quantitative experiments, although some qualitative approaches can be elements of RCTs. When measuring students’ success in bilingual education through proficiency test result analysis, RCTs may be effective. But Baker and Wright (2021) pointed out a valuable question which was "what tests or other sources of evidence are used to determine whether a form of bilingual education is successful?" (p.283). To measure the success of a bilingual education, students' social development, motivation, and identity, ect. are also important to investigate. Additionally, as Baker and Wright (2021) noted, “an experiment does not investigate the process” (p. 284). Teachers will inevitably bring their own perspectives and experiences to the research process.

Reference:

Baker, C. & Wright, W. (2021). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Multilingual Matters.

Reference:

Baker, C. & Wright, W. (2021). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Multilingual Matters.

In the US, we use CBI to help non-English speakers learn English while attempting to not sacrifice content with the focus on students performing well on standardized tests.

The main limitation I see for both is the limitation of attitude. In the US, we focus more on students learning English instead of fostering bilingual or multilingualism.

CLIL emphasizes integrating language learning into subject content, where language and subject matter complement each other. 'the major concern is about education, not about becoming bilingual and multilingual, and that multiple language proficiency is the "added value" which can be obtained at no cost to other skills and knowledge' (p. 524).

I agree with Erin's statement that in the United States, the emphasis seems to be on how to make students proficient in English rather than cultivating students to become bilingual or multilingual. Additionally, considering that students in the United States come from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds, with varying needs, providing personalized teaching methods and support for different students poses a challenge to the implementation of CLIL and CBI.

very much on education and not just on language: ‘the major concern is about education, not about becoming bilingual or

multilingual, and that multiple language proficiency is the “added value” which can be obtained at no cost to other skills and

knowledge, if properly designed' (Baetens Beardsmore, cited in García, 2009a: 211, original emphasis)" (pg. 472). It seems initially this may be a challenge since the emphasis is not place on language learning. However, I can see several positive outcomes as well. One, the student is absorbing the language along with his or her studies. Therefore, there may not experience some of the pressures/ expectations others feel when learning a different language.

However, we can clearly see that CBI is solely focused on the ELL student learning one language - English. As we have seen before, students may use multiple languages in order to define, understand, or make others see what they are talking about by using both languages. So there are certainly some limitations which restrict these students when entering US school systems.

Baker, C. & Wright, W. (2021). Foundations of Bilingual Research and Bilingualism. Multilingual Matters.

Baker, C. & Wright, W. (2021). Foundations of Bilingual Research and Bilingualism. Multilingual Matters.

CBI or (Content-based Instruction) shares a few similarities with CLIL as they both are intended to promote the use of language within the classroom, but CBI tends to focus more on the use of language through content. This type of approach can sometimes be risky because students can misuse this and focus more on the content area rather than the learning process through the use of language and improving language proficiency.

I believe there are quite a few limitations with the use of these methods because as we noticed, there are not many DLI programs within GA. One reason could be because of the population within the location. If many minorities speak the majority language, then it would be seen as valuable to add a DLI program within the school. In addition, I think there is a lack of educators to help non-English students learn the language while also focusing on the content and meeting the curriculum.