Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
Vol. 8:2 (2020) ► pp.149–172

Building in language support in a Hong Kong CLIL chemistry classroom

An exploratory study

ORCID logo | The University of Hong Kong | Yuen Long Merchants Association Secondary School

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.

Keywords: content and language integrated learning (CLIL), English as a foreign language (EFL), chemistry teaching
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
Published online: 31 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.18035.tsa
References
Beall, H.
(1998) Expanding the scope of writing in chemical education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(3), 259–270. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Connolly, P., & Vilardi, T.
(1989) Writing to learn mathematics and science. Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, M. M.
(1993) Writing: an approach for large-enrollment chemistry courses. J. Chem. Educ., 70(6), 476. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D.
(2010) Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Derewianka, B.
(2003) Trends and issues in genre-based approaches. RELC journal, 34(2), 133–154. DOI logoGoogle 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
Education Bureau
(2009) Enriching our language environment, realizing our vision: Fine-tuning of medium of instruction for secondary schools. Government Printer.Google Scholar
Gibbons, P.
(2009) English learners, academic literacy, and thinking: Learning in the Challenge Zone. Heinemann.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, J.
(2005) A diary study of difficulties and constraints in EFL learning. System, 33(4), 609–621. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, A. H.
(1997) Chemistry teaching-science or alchemy? 1996 Brasted lecture. J. Chem. Educ., 74(3), 262–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, A. H., & Selepeng, D.
(2001) A language problem revisited. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 2(1), 19–29. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, A. M.
(2015) Conceptualising the potential role of L1 in CLIL. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 74–89. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rose, D., & Martin, J. R.
(2012) Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Equinox.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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Wellington, J., & Osborne, J.
(2001) Language and literacy in science education. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar