This paper examines three related approaches in language education -Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), English for Specific Purposes (ESP), and Content-Based Instruction (CBI)-comparing their theoretical underpinnings, aims, roles of language and content, syllabus design, teacher roles, challenges, and empirical evidence. While each approach has distinctive features, they share core principles of integrating language and content. The analysis shows that rather than being strictly distinct, these methodologies lie on a variety of emphasis between language and content. The paper concludes with implications for practice and suggestions for further research.

Content-Based Instruction (CBI), Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), and English for Specific Purposes (ESP)

Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum.

Yang, W. (2016). ESP vs. CLIL: A coin of two sides or a continuum of two extremes? ESP Today.

Vega, M., & Moscoso, M. L. (2019). From ESP to CLIL in the tourism classroom: Challenges in implementation of CLIL in higher education.

Leonardi, V. (2015). Bridging the Gap Between ESP and CLIL in the University Context.

Pavelova, B. (2020). Comparison of Content and Language Integrated Learning in the Primary Level in Spain and Slovakia. SOCIETY. INTEGRATION. EDUCATION.

Graham, K. M. (2018). Language and content outcomes of CLIL and EMI: A review. LACLIL.

Alimjanova, L. X. (2022). Content-based instruction in language teaching in relation with CLIL implementation and outcome.

esptodayjournal.org

files.eric.ed.gov+2esptodayjournal.org+2

tandfonline.com+2academia.edu+2

laclil.unisabana.edu.co+2tandfonline.com+2

ResearchGate+3esptodayjournal.org+3files.eric.ed.gov+3