Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
Vol. 8:2 (2020) ► pp.149–172

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Building in language support in a Hong Kong CLIL chemistry classroom

An exploratory study

ORCiD logo with link | The University of Hong Kong | Yuen Long Merchants Association Secondary School
Published online: 31 August 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.18035.tsa
Abstract
Science writing has played a crucial part in science assessments. This paper reports a study in an area that has received little research attention – how science lessons in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) can increase the science knowledge development of English as a foreign language (EFL) students in Hong Kong. The data come from a school-based interventional study in chemistry classrooms, with written data from questionnaires, assessments and teachers’ logs and verbal data from interviews and classroom observations. The effectiveness of the CLIL teaching and learning activities in various chemistry classrooms were compared and evaluated, with a discussion of some implications. The paper concludes that CLIL teaching and learning activities yielded positive learning outcomes among chemistry learners with low English ability.
摘要
科學類型寫作在科學評估中至關重要。本文旨在彙報一個鮮為人知的研究領域-內容與語言整合學習（CLIL）的科學課程如何促進英語作為外語（EFL）香港學生的科學知識發展。本文數據來自一項校本化學科的干預研究，研究方法包括調查問卷、評估和教師日誌中的書面數據，以及訪談和課堂觀察中的口頭數據。是次研究比較和評估了CLIL在各種教學活動的有效程度與其中背後意義。本文的結論是CLIL的教與學活動在英語能力較低的化學學習者中產生積極的學習成果。
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical framework: Teaching and learning cycle
  • 3.Literature review
    • 3.1Writing in science
      • 3.1.1The importance of science writing
      • 3.1.2Science knowledge acquisition of EFL students
    • 3.2Content and language integrated learning
    • 3.3Research gap to be filled
  • 4.Methodology
    • 4.1Research design
    • 4.2Research setting and participants
    • 4.3Methods of data collection and analysis
      • 4.3.1Questionnaires
      • 4.3.2Focus group interview
      • 4.3.3Observations
    • 4.4Research questions
    • 4.5Ethical considerations
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1In the pre-study period
      • Results from questionnaires and focus group interviews
    • 5.2During the study period
      • 5.2.1The MEC
      • 5.2.2Student-and-Teacher interactions
      • 5.2.3Pre-test
      • 5.2.4Post-tests
    • 5.3After study period
      • 5.3.1Teacher reflection
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1Teachers’ attitude to CLIL teaching
    • 6.2Students’ attitudes to CLIL learning
    • 6.3Students’ performance after CLIL learning
  • 7.Conclusions and implications
    • 7.1Students’ content and language awareness
    • 7.2Students’ and Teachers’ acceptance of the CLIL approach
    • 7.3Further modifications for the next run
      • Modification of the teaching package
      • More Emphasis on daily vocabulary and academic vocabulary
    • 7.4Further investigations
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (26)
References
Beall, H. (1998). Expanding the scope of writing in chemical education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(3), 259–270. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Braden, S., Wassell, B. A., Scantlebury, K., & Grover, A. (2016). Supporting language learners in science classrooms: insights from middle-school English language learner students. Language and Education, 30(5), 438–458. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Connolly, P., & Vilardi, T. (1989). Writing to learn mathematics and science. Teachers College Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cooper, M. M. (1993). Writing: an approach for large-enrollment chemistry courses. J. Chem. Educ., 70(6), 476. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coxhead, A., & Boutorwick, T. J. (2018). Longitudinal vocabulary development in an EMI international school context: Learners and texts in EAL, maths, and science. TESOL Quarterly, 52(3), 588–610. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Derewianka, B. (2003). Trends and issues in genre-based approaches. RELC journal, 34(2), 133–154. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Derewianka, B. M. (2012). Knowledge about language in the Australian curriculum: English. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35(2), 127–146.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Education Bureau. (2009). Enriching our language environment, realizing our vision: Fine-tuning of medium of instruction for secondary schools. Government Printer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy, and thinking: Learning in the Challenge Zone. Heinemann.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glynn, S. M., & Muth, K. D. (1994). Reading and writing to learn science: Achieving scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 1057–1073. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, J. (2005). A diary study of difficulties and constraints in EFL learning. System, 33(4), 609–621. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. Encyclopedia of language and education, 487–499. Springer Science + Business Media LLC. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnstone, A. H. (1997). Chemistry teaching-science or alchemy? 1996 Brasted lecture. J. Chem. Educ., 74(3), 262–268. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnstone, A. H., & Selepeng, D. (2001). A language problem revisited. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 2(1), 19–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83(2), 115–130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Knipper, K. J., & Duggan, T. J. (2006). Writing to learn across the curriculum: Tools for comprehension in content area classes. The Reading Teacher, 59(5), 462–470. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lin, A. M. (2015). Conceptualising the potential role of L1 in CLIL. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 74–89. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Poon, A. Y. K., Lau, C. M., & Chu, D. H. (2013). Impact of the fine-tuning medium-of-instruction policy on learning: some preliminary findings. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal, 4(1), 946–954. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rivard, L. O. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 969–983. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tung, P., Lam, R., & Tsang, W. K. (1997). English as a medium of instruction in post-1997 Hong Kong: What students, teachers, and parents think. Journal of Pragmatics, 28(4), 441–459. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van de Craen, P., Mondt, K., Allain, L., & Gao, Y. (2007). Why and how CLIL works. An outline for a CLIL theory. Views, 16(3), 70–78.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yore, L., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689–725. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yore, L. D. (2000). Enhancing science literacy for all students with embedded reading instruction and writing-to-learn activities. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(1), 105–122. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Kenzhe, Aziza, Aliya Bitemirova, Ualikhanova Bayan, Saule Bitursyn & Ainur Zhorabekova
2025. Integrated teaching methodology in the development of foreign language professional communicative competence on the discipline “organic chemistry” at Kazakhstan University. Frontiers in Education 10 DOI logo
Nashaat-Sobhy, Nashwa, Eva M. Mestre-Mestre & Penny MacDonald
2025. A review of a decade of scaffolding practices for learning in CLIL science classrooms. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 13:2 ► pp. 216 ff. DOI logo
Kenzhe, Aziza, Aliya Bitemirova, Bayan Ualikhanova, Saule Bitursyn & Ainur Zhorabekova
2024. Comprehensive Approach to Training English Communicative Competence in Chemistry. Open Education Studies 6:1 DOI logo
Pun, Jack, Sheng Tan & Xiang Li
2024. Discourse competence in Hong Kong secondary students’ disciplinary research writing. Assessing Writing 61 ► pp. 100872 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue