英语媒介教学中的内容知识素养:学术英语素养重要吗?

IF 3.3 1区 文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Language Teaching Research Pub Date : 2025-01-18 DOI:10.1177/13621688241304051
Ikuya Aizawa, Heath Rose, Gene Thompson, Jim McKinley
{"title":"英语媒介教学中的内容知识素养:学术英语素养重要吗?","authors":"Ikuya Aizawa, Heath Rose, Gene Thompson, Jim McKinley","doi":"10.1177/13621688241304051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study investigates the relationship between students’ English language proficiency, their reported levels of academic English literacy, prior content knowledge and their attainment of content knowledge in English medium instruction (EMI). The study also examines students’ perceptions of difficulties with academic English literacy at different levels of English language proficiency. Pre-course and post-course content tests were administered to 27 EMI students in an introductory Chemistry course at a university in Tokyo, Japan. The test results were triangulated with data from a quantitative measure of reported academic literacy and follow-up interviews to explore perceptions of ease and difficulties for academic language skills (i.e. reading, listening, speaking and writing). The quantitative findings indicated that students’ proficiency statistically significantly predicted post-test scores. Interviews with students corroborated this finding, illustrating the specific difficulties in academic language literacy faced by students with lower proficiency. However, proficiency alone did not determine success as other factors, such as previous exposure to EMI and prior content knowledge, played significant roles. The study found a non-linear relationship between reported difficulties with academic English literacy and test outcomes, indicating that students who reported fewer academic difficulties were not necessarily more successful in gaining content knowledge than those facing significant challenges in academic language tasks. The findings emphasise that academic support in EMI programs should not solely focus on test outcomes but also address the broader challenges students face with academic English literacy. Implications are discussed regarding language support, EMI curriculum planning and future research directions.","PeriodicalId":47852,"journal":{"name":"Language Teaching Research","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Content knowledge attainment in English medium instruction: Does academic English literacy matter?\",\"authors\":\"Ikuya Aizawa, Heath Rose, Gene Thompson, Jim McKinley\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13621688241304051\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study investigates the relationship between students’ English language proficiency, their reported levels of academic English literacy, prior content knowledge and their attainment of content knowledge in English medium instruction (EMI). The study also examines students’ perceptions of difficulties with academic English literacy at different levels of English language proficiency. Pre-course and post-course content tests were administered to 27 EMI students in an introductory Chemistry course at a university in Tokyo, Japan. The test results were triangulated with data from a quantitative measure of reported academic literacy and follow-up interviews to explore perceptions of ease and difficulties for academic language skills (i.e. reading, listening, speaking and writing). The quantitative findings indicated that students’ proficiency statistically significantly predicted post-test scores. Interviews with students corroborated this finding, illustrating the specific difficulties in academic language literacy faced by students with lower proficiency. However, proficiency alone did not determine success as other factors, such as previous exposure to EMI and prior content knowledge, played significant roles. The study found a non-linear relationship between reported difficulties with academic English literacy and test outcomes, indicating that students who reported fewer academic difficulties were not necessarily more successful in gaining content knowledge than those facing significant challenges in academic language tasks. The findings emphasise that academic support in EMI programs should not solely focus on test outcomes but also address the broader challenges students face with academic English literacy. Implications are discussed regarding language support, EMI curriculum planning and future research directions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47852,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Language Teaching Research\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Language Teaching Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688241304051\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language Teaching Research","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688241304051","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究调查了学生的英语语言能力、他们报告的学术英语读写水平、先前的内容知识以及他们在以英语为媒介的教学(EMI)中获得的内容知识之间的关系。本研究还探讨了不同英语水平的学生对学术英语读写困难的看法。在日本东京一所大学的化学入门课程中,对 27 名 EMI 学生进行了课前和课后内容测试。测试结果与所报告的学术素养的定量测量数据和后续访谈数据进行了三角分析,以探讨学生对学术语言技能(即阅读、听力、口语和写作)的难易程度的看法。定量研究结果表明,从统计学角度看,学生的语言能力在很大程度上预示着测试后的分数。与学生的访谈也证实了这一结果,说明了水平较低的学生在学术语言素养方面所面临的具体困难。然而,能力本身并不能决定成功与否,因为其他因素,如以前对 EMI 的接触和以前的内容知识,也起着重要作用。研究发现,在报告的学术英语读写困难与测试结果之间存在非线性关系,这表明报告学术困难较少的学生在获取内容知识方面并不一定比那些在学术语言任务中面临重大挑战的学生更成功。研究结果强调,EMI 课程中的学术支持不应只关注考试结果,还应解决学生在学术英语读写能力方面面临的更广泛挑战。研究还讨论了语言支持、EMI 课程规划和未来研究方向的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Content knowledge attainment in English medium instruction: Does academic English literacy matter?
This study investigates the relationship between students’ English language proficiency, their reported levels of academic English literacy, prior content knowledge and their attainment of content knowledge in English medium instruction (EMI). The study also examines students’ perceptions of difficulties with academic English literacy at different levels of English language proficiency. Pre-course and post-course content tests were administered to 27 EMI students in an introductory Chemistry course at a university in Tokyo, Japan. The test results were triangulated with data from a quantitative measure of reported academic literacy and follow-up interviews to explore perceptions of ease and difficulties for academic language skills (i.e. reading, listening, speaking and writing). The quantitative findings indicated that students’ proficiency statistically significantly predicted post-test scores. Interviews with students corroborated this finding, illustrating the specific difficulties in academic language literacy faced by students with lower proficiency. However, proficiency alone did not determine success as other factors, such as previous exposure to EMI and prior content knowledge, played significant roles. The study found a non-linear relationship between reported difficulties with academic English literacy and test outcomes, indicating that students who reported fewer academic difficulties were not necessarily more successful in gaining content knowledge than those facing significant challenges in academic language tasks. The findings emphasise that academic support in EMI programs should not solely focus on test outcomes but also address the broader challenges students face with academic English literacy. Implications are discussed regarding language support, EMI curriculum planning and future research directions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.20
自引率
7.10%
发文量
116
期刊介绍: Language Teaching Research is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes research within the area of second or foreign language teaching. Although articles are written in English, the journal welcomes studies dealing with the teaching of languages other than English as well. The journal is a venue for studies that demonstrate sound research methods and which report findings that have clear pedagogical implications. A wide range of topics in the area of language teaching is covered, including: -Programme -Syllabus -Materials design -Methodology -The teaching of specific skills and language for specific purposes Thorough investigation and research ensures this journal is: -International in focus, publishing work from countries worldwide -Interdisciplinary, encouraging work which seeks to break down barriers that have isolated language teaching professionals from others concerned with pedagogy -Innovative, seeking to stimulate new avenues of enquiry, including ''action'' research
期刊最新文献
Towards exploratory talk in secondary-school CLIL: An empirical study of the cognitive discourse function ‘explore’ A study of the effect of multimodal input on vocabulary acquisition: Evidence from online Chinese language learners Why classroom climate matters: Exploring Japanese university students’ motivational regulation within a classroom ecology Moving beyond native-speakerism through identity-based teacher education: The roles of positioning and agency Generalizing linguistic patterns through data-driven learning: A study of the dative alternation in Japanese learners of English
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1