1887
image of Building in language support in a Hong Kong CLIL chemistry classroom
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.18035.tsa
2020-08-31
2020-09-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Beall, H.
    (1998) Expanding the scope of writing in chemical education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(3), 259–270. 10.1023/A:1021896524859
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021896524859 [Google Scholar]
  2. 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. 10.1080/09500782.2015.1134566
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2015.1134566 [Google Scholar]
  3. Connolly, P., & Vilardi, T.
    (1989) Writing to learn mathematics and science. Teachers College Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cooper, M. M.
    (1993) Writing: an approach for large-enrollment chemistry courses. J. Chem. Educ., 70(6), 476. 10.1021/ed070p476
    https://doi.org/10.1021/ed070p476 [Google Scholar]
  5. 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. 10.1002/tesq.450
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.450 [Google Scholar]
  6. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D.
    (2010) Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Derewianka, B.
    (2003) Trends and issues in genre-based approaches. RELC journal, 34(2), 133–154. 10.1177/003368820303400202
    https://doi.org/10.1177/003368820303400202 [Google Scholar]
  8. Derewianka, B. M.
    (2012) Knowledge about language in the Australian curriculum: English. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35(2), 127–146.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Education Bureau
    Education Bureau (2009) Enriching our language environment, realizing our vision: Fine-tuning of medium of instruction for secondary schools. Government Printer.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Gibbons, P.
    (2009) English learners, academic literacy, and thinking: Learning in the Challenge Zone. Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 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. 10.1002/tea.3660310915
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310915 [Google Scholar]
  12. Huang, J.
    (2005) A diary study of difficulties and constraints in EFL learning. System, 33(4), 609–621. 10.1016/j.system.2005.04.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  13. 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. 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑30424‑3_36
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_36 [Google Scholar]
  14. Johnstone, A. H.
    (1997) Chemistry teaching-science or alchemy? 1996 Brasted lecture. J. Chem. Educ., 74(3), 262–268. doi:  10.1021/ed074p262
    https://doi.org/10.1021/ed074p262 [Google Scholar]
  15. Johnstone, A. H., & Selepeng, D.
    (2001) A language problem revisited. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 2(1), 19–29. 10.1039/B0RP90028A
    https://doi.org/10.1039/B0RP90028A [Google Scholar]
  16. Keys, C. W.
    (1999) Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83(2), 115–130. 10.1002/(SICI)1098‑237X(199903)83:2<115::AID‑SCE2>3.0.CO;2‑Q
    https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199903)83:2<115::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-Q [Google Scholar]
  17. 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. 10.1598/RT.59.5.5
    https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.59.5.5 [Google Scholar]
  18. Lin, A. M.
    (2015) Conceptualising the potential role of L1 in CLIL. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 74–89. 10.1080/07908318.2014.1000926
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000926 [Google Scholar]
  19. 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. 10.20533/licej.2040.2589.2013.0138
    https://doi.org/10.20533/licej.2040.2589.2013.0138 [Google Scholar]
  20. 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. 10.1002/tea.3660310910
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310910 [Google Scholar]
  21. Rose, D., & Martin, J. R.
    (2012) Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 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. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(97)00034‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00034-9 [Google Scholar]
  23. 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]
  24. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J.
    (2001) Language and literacy in science education. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 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. 10.1080/09500690305018
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305018 [Google Scholar]
  26. 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. 10.1093/deafed/5.1.105
    https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/5.1.105 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.18035.tsa
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.18035.tsa
Loading

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