Volume 7, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2212-8433
  • E-ISSN: 2212-8441
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This study is situated in a newly emerging EMI setting in China where an Anglophone high school curriculum is taught by predominantly foreign teachers through English to local Chinese students. These teachers are termed ‘monolingual teachers’ in the sense that they cannot use the students’ L1 as a resource in their teaching should they wish to, as opposed to the typical bilingual teachers commonly explored in the existing EMI literature. Through quantitative and qualitative analysis of 30 video-recorded EMI science lessons taught by 15 monolingual teachers we identified and explored the language-focused-episodes (LFEs) where students’ attention was explicitly diverted from the content plane to the language plane. We found very limited explicit language instruction, with non-technical vocabulary being the main type of LFEs, and only a narrow range of grammatical features being attended to. The implications for this lack of focus on language are discussed in the context of monolingual teachers but also with reference to the potential for bilingual teachers to use both L1 and L2 for LFEs.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Basturkmen, H., & Shackleford, N.
    (2015) How content lecturers help students with language: An observational study of language-related episodes in interaction in first year accounting classrooms. English for Specific Purposes, 37(1), 87–97. doi:  10.1016/j.esp.2014.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Butzkamm, W.
    (1998) Code-switching in a bilingual history lesson: The mother tongue as a conversational lubricant. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1(2), 81–99. doi:  10.1080/13670059808667676
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670059808667676 [Google Scholar]
  3. Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. J.
    (2012) Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 251–269. doi:  10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2012.01330.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01330.x [Google Scholar]
  4. Clark, J.
    (1997) Beyond the turgid soil of science prose: STAP’s attempt to write more accessible science text materials in general science. InM. Sanders (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Southern African Association for Research in Science and Mathematics Education. (pp.390–396). Johannesburg, South Africa: University of the Witwatersrand.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Coleman, J.
    (2006) English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language Teaching, 39(1), 1–14. doi:  10.1017/S026144480600320X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480600320X [Google Scholar]
  6. Cook, V.
    (1999) Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 185–209. doi:  10.2307/3587717
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587717 [Google Scholar]
  7. Costa, F.
    (2012) Focus on form in ICLHE lectures in Italy: Evidence from English-medium science lectures by native speakers of Italian. AILA Review, 25(1), 30–47.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Coxhead, A.
    (2000) A new academic word list link. Tesol Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238. 10.2307/3587951
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951 [Google Scholar]
  9. De Graaff, R., Koopman, G. J., Anikina, Y., & Westhoff, G.
    (2007) An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603–624. doi:  10.2167/beb462.0
    https://doi.org/10.2167/beb462.0 [Google Scholar]
  10. De Oliveira, L. C., & Schleppegrell, M.
    (2015) Focus on grammar and meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Ellis, R., & He, X.
    (1999) The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), 285–301. 10.1017/S0272263199002077
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199002077 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fang, Z.
    (2005) Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89(2), 335–347. doi:  10.1002/sce.20050
    https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20050 [Google Scholar]
  13. Galloway, N., & Rose, H.
    (2015) Introducing global Englishes. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315734347
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315734347 [Google Scholar]
  14. García Mayo, M., & Basterrechea, M.
    (2017) CLIL and SLA: Insights from an interactionist perspective. InA. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp.33–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/lllt.47.03gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47.03gra [Google Scholar]
  15. García, O., & Li, W.
    (2014) Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Houndmills: Palgrave. 10.1057/9781137385765
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137385765 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gibbons, P.
    (2002) Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gorard, S., & Taylor, C.
    (2004) Combining methods in educational and social research. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Halliday, M. A. K.
    (1993) Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5(2), 93–116. doi:  10.1016/0898‑5898(93)90026‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0898-5898(93)90026-7 [Google Scholar]
  19. Joyce, P.
    (2018) L2 vocabulary learning and testing: the use of L1 translation versus L2 definition. Language Learning Journal, 46(3), 217–227. doi:  10.1080/09571736.2015.1028088
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1028088 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kachru, B. B.
    (1984) World englishes and the teaching of english to non-native speakers, contexts, attitudes, and concerns. TESOL Newsletter, 18, 25–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (1985) Standards, codification, and sociolinguistic realm: the English language in the outer circle. InR. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp.11–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Krashen, S.
    (1982) Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lasagabaster, D., & Huguet, A.
    (2007) Multilingualism in European bilingual contexts: Language use and attitudes. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Laufer, B.
    (2005) Focus on form in second language vocabulary learning. InS. Foster-Cohen, M. Garcia-Mayo, & J. Cenoz (Eds.), Eurosla Yearbook: Volume 5 (pp.223–250). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lemke, J. L.
    (1990) Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Lin, A. M. Y.
    (1996) Bilingualism or linguistic segregation? Symbolic domination, resistance and codeswitching in Hong Kong Schools. Linguistics and Education, 8(1), 49–84. 10.1016/S0898‑5898(96)90006‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(96)90006-6 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lin, A. M. Y., & Wu, Y.
    (2015) ‘May I speak Cantonese?’ – Co-constructing a scientific proof in an EFL junior secondary science classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(3), 289–305. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2014.988113
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2014.988113 [Google Scholar]
  28. Llinares, A., & Lyster, R.
    (2014) The influence of context on patterns of corrective feedback and learner uptake: A comparison of CLIL and immersion classrooms. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 181–194. doi:  10.1080/09571736.2014.889509
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.889509 [Google Scholar]
  29. Llurda, E.
    (Ed.) (2005) Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the profession. Boston, MA: Springer. 10.1007/b106233
    https://doi.org/10.1007/b106233 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lo, Y. Y.
    (2010) What happens to classroom interaction patterns and teachers’ code-switching behaviour when the medium of instruction changes?: An exploratory study in Hong Kong secondary schools (Unpublished dotoral dissertation). University of Oxford.
  31. Long, M.
    (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. InW. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp.413–468). New York, NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lorenzo, F.
    (2007) An analytical framework of language integration in L2 content-based courses: The European dimension. Language and Education, 21(6), 502–514. doi:  10.2167/le708.0
    https://doi.org/10.2167/le708.0 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lyster, R.
    (2007) Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.18 [Google Scholar]
  34. Macaro, E.
    (2018) English medium instruction: Content and language in policy and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.30687/978‑88‑6969‑227‑7/001
    https://doi.org/10.30687/978-88-6969-227-7/001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J.
    (2018) A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51(1), 36–76. doi:  10.1017/S0261444817000350
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000350 [Google Scholar]
  36. Macaro, E., Guo, T., Chen, H., & Tian, L.
    (2009) Can differential processing of L2 vocabulary inform the debate on teacher codeswitching behaviour: The case of Chinese learners of English. InB. Richards, M. Daller, P. Malvern, J. Meara, J. Milton, & J. Treffers-Daller (Eds.), Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition: The interface between theory and application. (pp.125–146). London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230242258_8
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230242258_8 [Google Scholar]
  37. Macaro, E., Nakatani, Y., Hayashi, Y., & Khabbazbashi, N.
    (2014) Exploring the value of bilingual language assistants with Japanese English as a foreign language learners. The Language Learning Journal, 42(1), 41–54. doi:  10.1080/09571736.2012.678275
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.678275 [Google Scholar]
  38. Marsh, D.
    (2002) CLIL/EMILE – The European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight. Potential Public Services Contract DG EAC.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Martin, J.
    (1991) Norminalization in science and humanities: Disliking knowledge and scaffolding text. InE. Ventola (Ed.), Functional and systemic linguistics: Approaches and uses (pp.307–337). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110883527.307
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110883527.307 [Google Scholar]
  40. Maxwell-reid, C.
    (2017) Classroom discourse in bilingual secondary science: Language as medium or language as dialectic?International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–14. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2017.1377683
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1377683 [Google Scholar]
  41. McMillan, B., & Turnbull, M.
    (2009) Teachers’ use of the first language in French immersion: Revisiting a core principle. InM. Turnbull & J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning (pp.15–34). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847691972‑004
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691972-004 [Google Scholar]
  42. Met, M.
    (1999) Content-based instruction: Defining terms, making decisions. Washington D.C: The National Foreign Language center.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Miller, J.
    (2009) Teaching refugee learners with interrupted education in science: Vocabulary, literacy and pedagogy. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 571–592. doi:  10.1080/09500690701744611
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701744611 [Google Scholar]
  44. Moussu, L., & Llurda, E.
    (2008) Non-native English-speaking English language teachers: History and research. Language Teaching, 41(03), 315–348. doi:  10.1017/S0261444808005028
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005028 [Google Scholar]
  45. Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., & García, A. L.
    (2013) CLIL classroom discourse: Research from Europe. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 70–100. doi:  10.1075/jicb.1.1.04nik
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.1.1.04nik [Google Scholar]
  46. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
    (2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528. doi:  10.1111/0023‑8333.00136
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136 [Google Scholar]
  47. Pérez-Cañado, M. L.
    (2012) CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–341. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2011.630064
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.630064 [Google Scholar]
  48. Pérez-Vidal, C.
    (2007) The need for focus on form (fof) in content and language integrated approaches: An exploratory study. Resla, 1, 39–54.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C.
    (1987) The impact of interaction on comprehension. Tesol Quarterly, 21, 737–758. 10.2307/3586992
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586992 [Google Scholar]
  50. Probyn, M., Murray, S., Bothal, L., Botya, P., Brooks, M., & Westphal, V.
    (2002) Minding the gaps – An investigation into language policy and practice in four Eastern Cape town districts. Perspectives in Education, 20(1), 29–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Prophet, B., & Towse, P.
    (1999) Pupils’ understanding of some non-technical words in science. School Science Review, 295, 79–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Robson, C.
    (2002) Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Rollnick, M.
    (2000) Current issues and perspectives on second language learning of science. Studies in Science Education, 35(1), 93–121. doi:  10.1080/03057260008560156
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260008560156 [Google Scholar]
  54. Seah, L. H., Clarke, D. J., & Hart, C. E.
    (2014) Understanding the language demands on science students from an integrated science and language perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 952–973. doi:  10.1080/09500693.2013.832003
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.832003 [Google Scholar]
  55. Shohamy, E. G.
    (2006) Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203387962
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203387962 [Google Scholar]
  56. Spada, N., & Tomita, Y.
    (2010) Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2010.00562.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x [Google Scholar]
  57. Strevens, P.
    (1980) Teaching English as an international language: From practice to principle (1st ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Swain, M.
    (1996) Integrating language and content in immersion classrooms: Research perspectives. Canadian Modern Language Review, 52, 529–548. 10.3138/cmlr.52.4.529
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.52.4.529 [Google Scholar]
  59. Urmeneta, C. E., & Walsh, S.
    (2017) Classroom interactional competence in content and language integrated learning. InA. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp.183–200). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/lllt.47.11esc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47.11esc [Google Scholar]
  60. Walker, E.
    (2011) How ‘language-aware’ are lesson studies in an East Asian high school context?Language and Education, 25(3), 187–202. 10.1080/09500782.2011.555557
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2011.555557 [Google Scholar]
  61. Williams, J., & Doughty, C.
    (1998) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Yip, D. Y., Tsang, W. K., & Cheung, S. P.
    (2003) Evaluation of the effects of medium of instruction on the science learning of Hong Kong secondary students: Performance on the science achievement test. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(2), 295–331. doi:  10.1080/15235882.2003.10162808
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2003.10162808 [Google Scholar]
  63. Zhao, T., & Macaro, E.
    (2016) What works better for the learning of concrete and abstract words: Teachers’ L1 use or L2-only explanations?International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 75–98. doi:  10.1111/ijal.12080
    https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12080 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error