CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 55Second Language Learning and TeachingEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningScience Education and Pedagogy

Students’ beliefs about the role of interaction for science learning and language learning in EMI science classes: Evidence from high schools in China

Open access
An, Jiangshan, Thomas, Nathan·2021·Linguistics and Education
DOI 10.1016/j.linged.2021.100972
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.linged.2021.100972

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The moderate level of correlation perhaps indicates a heightened need for wait time for students to think and phrase answers due to the dual cognitive challenges in EMI science classes.

    “The moderate level of correlation perhaps indicates a heightened need for wait time for students to think and phrase answers due to the dual cognitive challenges in EMI science classes (An & Thomas, 2021).”

    From Teacher questions, wait time, and student output in classroom interaction in EMI science classes: An interdisciplinary view (2023) · cites this paper as An & Thomas, 2021

    Section 4.3.1 (page unavailable) reports that students struggled to process science explanations in English in real time, and Section 5.2 identifies accurately phrasing questions as a major challenge. These findings support the proposed difficulty of thinking and responding in EMI science classes, but the paper does not connect a moderate correlation to a heightened need for wait time. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 68

  1. Alexander, R. (2004). Towards dialogic teaching: rethinking classroom talk. Cambridge: Dialogos.
  2. An, J., Macaro, E., & Childs, A. (2019). Language focused episodes by monolingual teachers in English Medium Instruction science lessons. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 7(2), 166-191. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.18019. · DOI
  3. An, J., Macaro, E., & Childs, A. (2021). Classroom interaction in EMI high schools : Do teachers who are native speakers of English make a difference ? System, 98, 102482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102482 · DOI
  4. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81-109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444803001903 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Brown, A. (2009). Students' and Teachers ' Perceptions of Effective Foreign Language Teaching: A Comparison of Ideals. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 46-60.
  6. Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  7. Cammarata, L., & Haley, C. (2017). Integrated content, language, and literacy instruction in a Canadian French immersion context: a professional development journey. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 332-348. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1386617 · DOI
  8. Chin, C. (2007). Teacher Questioning in Science Classrooms: Approaches that Stimulate Productive Thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815-843. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea · DOI
  9. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Students' questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 883-908. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20385 · DOI
  10. Cho, D. W. (2012). English-medium Instruction in the university context of Korea: Tradeoff between teaching outcomes and media-initiated university ranking. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 9(4), 135-163.
  11. Clark, J. (1997). Beyond the turgid soil of science prose: STAP's attempt to write more accessible science text materials in general science. In M. 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.
  12. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
  13. Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89(2), 335-347. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20050 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Gass, S. M., & Mackey., A. (2007). Input, Interaction and Output in Second Language Acquisition. In J. Williams & B. VanPatten (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 175-199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  15. Genesee, F., & Lindholm-Leary, K. (2013). Two case studies of content-based language education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 3-33.
  16. Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5(2), 93-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/0898-5898(93)90026-7 · DOI
  17. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  18. Hellekjaer, G. O. (2010). Language matters: Assessing lecture comprehension in Norwegian English-medium higher education. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 233-258). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  19. Ho, C., Kwai Yeok Wong, J., & Rappa, N. A. (2019). Supporting students' content learning in Biology through teachers' use of classroom talk drawing on concept sketches. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 7(2), 233-260. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.18020. · DOI
  20. Horwitz, E. K. (2007). Why student beliefs about language learning matter: Issues in the development and implementation of the Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory. In H. J. Siskin (Ed.), AAUSC 2007 From thought to action: Exploring beliefs and outcomes in the foreign language program (pp. 2-7). Boston: Thomson Heinle. Kartchava.
  21. Jiang, A. L., & Zhang, L. J. (2019). Chinese students' perceptions of English learning affordances and their agency in an English-medium instruction classroom context. Language and Education, 33(4), 322-339. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1578789 · DOI
  22. Joe, Y. J., & Lee, H. K. (2013). Does English-Medium Instruction Benefit Students in EFL Contexts? A Case Study of Medical Students in Korea. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(2), 201-207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-012-0003-7 · DOI
  23. Johnson, B., & Turner, L. A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (pp. 297-320). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  24. Krueger, R. (1994). Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. London: SAGE.
  25. Lasagabaster, D. (2009). The implementation of CLIL and attitudes towards trilingualism. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 157(1), 23-43.
  26. Lin, A. M. Y. (2006). Beyond Linguistic Purism in Language-in-education Policy and Practice: Exploring Bilingual Pedagogies in a Hong Kong Science Classroom. Language and Education, 20(4), 287-305. https://doi.org/10.2167/le643. · DOI
  27. Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking : putting talk to work. London : Routledge.
  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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.889509 · DOI
  29. Lo, Y. Y., & Macaro, E. (2012). The medium of instruction and classroom interaction : evidence from Hong Kong secondary schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(1), 29-52.
  30. Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
  31. Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction: content and language in policy and practice. Oxford University Press.
  32. 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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000350 · DOI
  33. Mantle-Bromley, C. (1995). Positive Attitudes and Realistic Beliefs: Links to Proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 79(3), 372-386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 4781.1995.tb01114.x · DOI
  34. Martin, J. (1991). Norminalization in science and humanities: disliking knowledge and scaffolding text. In E. Ventola (Ed.), Functional and Systemic Linguistics: Approaches and Uses (pp. 307-337). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  35. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the Development of Children's Thinking: a socio-cultural approach. Routledge.
  36. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
  37. 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. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.1.1.04nik NRC. (1996). National Science Education Standards : observe, interact, change, learn. National Academy Press. · DOI
  38. Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345-375.
  39. Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS survival manual : a step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
  40. Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 737-758.
  41. Probyn, M. (2006). Language and Learning Science in South Africa. Language and Education, 20(5), 391-414. https://doi.org/10.2167/le554. · DOI
  42. Prophet, B., & Towse, P. (1999). Pupils' understanding of some non-technical words in science. School Science Review, 81(295), 79-86.
  43. Pun, J. K. H., & Thomas, N. (2020). English medium instruction: teachers' challenges and coping strategies. ELT Journal, 74(July), 247-257. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccaa024 · DOI
  44. Qiu, X., & Fang, C. (2019). Creating an effective English-Medium Instruction ( EMI ) classroom : Chinese undergraduate students ' perceptions of native and non-native English- speaking content teachers and their experiences. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1707769 · DOI
  45. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research : a resource for social scientists and practitioner- researchers (2nd ed.). Blackwell.
  46. Rose, H., Mckinley, J., & Daffoe-Djan, J. (2020). Data Collection Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Bloomsbury.
  47. Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Enderle, P. (2013). Development and Initial Validation of the Beliefs About Reformed Science Teaching and Learning ( BARSTL ) Questionnaire. School Science and Mathematics, 113(1), 3-15.
  48. Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 611-633. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12035.x · DOI · Paper page
  49. Sato, M., & Storch, N. (2020). Context matters: Learner beliefs and interactional behaviors in an EFL vs. ESL context. Language Teaching Research, April. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820923582 · DOI
  50. Schleppergrell, J., Achugar, M., & Ote'iza, T. (2004). The Grammar of History: Enhancing Content-Based Instruction Through a Functional Focus on Language. Tesol Quarterly, 38(1), 67-93.
  51. Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: a tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In S. R. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (Technical Report No. 9) (pp. 1-63). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i.
  52. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.832003 · DOI
  53. Seah, L. H., & Silver, R. E. (2020). Attending to science language demands in multilingual classrooms: a case study. International Journal of Science Education, 42(14), 2453-2471. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1504177 · DOI
  54. Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences, (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
  55. Short, D. J. (1994). Expanding middle school horizons: Integrating language, culture, and social studies. TESOL Quarterly, 28(3), 581-60.
  56. Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford University Press.
  57. Sopia, Y., Ong, T., Hashimah, A., Sadiah, B., & Lai, Y. Y. (2010). Teaching Science Through English: Engaging Pupils Cognitively. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(3), 46-59.
  58. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honor of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford : Oxford University Press.
  59. Sylvén, L. K. (2013). CLIL in Sweden -why does it not work? A metaperspective on CLIL across contexts in Europe. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 301-320. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777387 · DOI
  60. Tan, M. (2011). Mathematics and science teachers' beliefs and practices regarding the teaching of language in content learning. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 325-342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811401153 · DOI
  61. Tang, K. S. (2021). Discourse strategies for science teaching & learning : research and practice. New York, NY : Routledge.
  62. Thomas, N., & Rose, H. (2019). Do Language Learning Strategies Need to Be Self-Directed? Disentangling Strategies From Self-Regulated Learning. TESOL Quarterly, 53(1), 248-257. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.473 · DOI
  63. Tytler, R., & Aranda, G. (2015). Expert Teachers' Discursive Moves in Science Classroom Interactive Talk. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 425- 446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9617-6 · DOI
  64. Watkins, D. A., & Biggs, J. B. (Eds.) (1996). The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological, and contextual influences. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre and Australian Council for Educational Research.
  65. Watts, M., Alsop, S., Gould, G., & Walsh, A. (1997). Prompting teachers' constructive reflection: pupils' questions as critical incidents. International Journal of Science Education, 19(9), 1025-1037. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069970190903 · DOI
  66. Xu, D., & Harfitt, G. J. (2019). Teacher language awareness and scaffolded interaction in CLIL science classrooms. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 7(2), 212-232. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.18023. · DOI
  67. Yip, D. Y., Coyle, D., & Tsang, W. (2007). Evaluation of the effects of the medium of instruction on science learning of Hong Kong secondary students: Instructional activities in science lessons. Education Journal, 35(2), 78-107.
  68. Zacharias, N. T. (2013). Navigating through the English-medium-of-instruction policy: voices from the field. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14(1), 93-108. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2013.782797 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
An, J., & Thomas, N.
Affiliations
  • Purdue University Fort Wayne (US)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
An, Jiangshan
ORCID
Venue
Linguistics and Education
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-10
Volume
65
Pages
100972
ISSN
0898-5898 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.linged.2021.100972
OpenAlex
W3187721746
Cited by
55
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 1
FWCI
88.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Linguistics and Education (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Second Language Learning and Teaching
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
Keywords
English-medium instruction, science education, student beliefs, classroom interaction, language learning, science learning, high school students, China

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review