See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342701225

English medium instruction: teachers' challenges and coping strategies

Article  in  ELT Journal · July 2020

DOI: 10.1093/elt/ccaa024

CITATION READS
1 456

2 authors:

Jack Pun Nathan Thomas

City University of Hong Kong University College London
44 PUBLICATIONS   348 CITATIONS    26 PUBLICATIONS   53 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

English Medium Instruction View project

Book Reviews View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nathan Thomas on 05 July 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This is an author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in ELT
Journal. The definitive, publisher-authenticated version can be found at
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccaa024
To cite this article: Pun, J. K. H., & Thomas, N. (2020). English medium
instruction: teachers’ challenges and coping strategies. ELT Journal (Advance
access). https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccaa024

English medium instruction: teachers’

challenges and coping strategies
Jack K. H. Pun1, Nathan Thomas2

English medium instruction (EMI) is a growing phenomenon in many countries. Some researchers
have investigated the difficulties and strategies students use to cope with EMI. However, the
pedagogical challenges faced and strategies used by other key participants, teachers, have been
surprisingly under-researched. This study utilizes questionnaire and interview data to identify the
challenges and coping strategies used by secondary school EMI science teachers in Hong Kong. A
number of challenges and strategies were reported. The authors argue that many of these
challenges can be overcome with principles and strategies from ELT, as the ‘English’ in EMI is often
the main issue. The most prevalent strategy reported is the use of L1. Two perspectives on L1 usage
in EMI contexts are discussed. Two emergent realities are presented as possible solutions: the
idealized reality and the immediate reality. Implications for teachers and suggestions for future
research are provided.

Introduction
For better or worse, English has become the lingua franca of education (Galloway and Rose
2015). In many contexts, students learn content (e.g. maths, science, history) through the
medium of English, as instruction initiatives have been established to provide an
international learning experience in countries where English is not the primary language
(Rose and McKinley 2018). In Europe, the preferred model for secondary education is
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), where the pedagogical practices of
language instruction are implemented to enhance the learning of subject matter. English
medium instruction (EMI) is another variation often applied in tertiary education without a
language focus but where it is implied that language is learnt while focusing on content
(Wannagat 2007). In Hong Kong, secondary education is more closely associated with EMI.
Previous studies have shown that subject teachers in EMI classrooms encounter many
language challenges that may have a negative impact on their teaching practice (e.g. Briggs,
Deardon and Macaro 2018). Problems include limited English communication skills, a lack
of EMI training, and a commonly shared belief by many subject teachers that they are not
responsible for addressing students’ language needs. As a result, lack of attention to
language needs, ineffective teaching practices, and poor teacher–student interactions are
commonly reported (Macaro 2018). This may limit the opportunities for students to
develop both their English language ability and content knowledge—commonly cited goals
in EMI implementation—which many programmes simply assume develop simultaneously
without providing language support (cf. CLIL).

Teachers’ beliefs have been shown to influence their teaching practice (see Macaro, Curle,
Pun, An, and Dearden 2018 for a review). Researching teachers’ perceptions is important
because their views may contradict those of other key stakeholders, and therefore their
concerns should be taken seriously. For example, in a classic study at a time when Britain
handed the sovereignty of Hong Kong back to China and new medium of instruction
initiatives were established, Tung, Lam, and Tsang (1997) conducted a large-scale survey
of the attitudes of language and subject teachers towards the use of EMI in Hong Kong
secondary schools. Their findings show that many teachers believe that the use of English
is educationally less effective than teaching content in the students’ and teachers’ primary
language. This differs from the students’ parents’ belief in the added value of using English
over Chinese for pragmatic reasons (e.g. career opportunities).
Further studies have provided inconclusive evidence with regard to teachers’ views
towards EMI. Many teachers welcome the adoption of EMI in their classrooms, believing
that EMI may increase students’ language and content knowledge simultaneously; others
feel that the development of both content knowledge and language is not their
responsibility (Macaro 2018). Moreover, many teachers receive no specific EMI training,
and as a result, do not develop the necessary linguistic competence and pedagogical skills
to deliver content effectively in English (Dearden 2015). In a study of Hong Kong junior
secondary school science teachers, Hoare (2003) found that many of the EMI science
teachers in the study did not have a high level of language awareness in English and that
they thus paid little attention to their students’ L2 needs. In their observations of EMI
science classrooms in Hong Kong, Yip, Coyle, and Tsang (2007) found most teachers to be
unprepared for integrating both content and language. Due to their lack of proficiency in
spoken English, these teachers found themselves struggling to explain abstract concepts
and reluctant to use questions that promote higher-order thinking, maintaining a lecture-
based teaching style.
In a recent ELT Journal article, Soruç and Griffiths (2018) reported on the difficulties
students face and the strategies they use to cope with EMI at a Turkish university. The
majority of the challenges stem from ‘language inadequacies’; the authors proclaim that
‘many students are simply being set-up to fail’ (ibid.: 46). We would argue that many
teachers are also being set-up to fail. In order to extend the findings from their study, Soruç
and Griffiths state that different locations, institutional types, and the teachers in these
contexts require attention. The current study attempts to address this call to action by
examining the secondary rather than the tertiary level, a geographically and culturally
different context in Hong Kong, and by shifting the focus from students to teachers.
Furthermore, experiences in different EMI subject courses are investigated. Soruç and
Griffiths’ participants were enrolled in international relations and psychology courses,
while the participants in the present study teach science. As more studies with different
variables emerge, we are better able to understand the impact of EMI on a global level.
The study described in this article sought to address two main questions:
1. What difficulties do secondary-school EMI science teachers face in teaching science
through English?
2. What strategies do they use to address these challenges?
The Study
Setting and Participants
This study recruited senior science teachers from eight public EMI secondary schools in
Hong Kong. Data were collected from two types of EMI schools: early-full (full EMI
instruction from grades 7 to 12) and late-partial (Chinese medium of instruction from
grades 7 to 9 and partial EMI instruction from grades 10 to 12). Teachers in both types of
schools follow the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education curriculum, use the same
textbooks, and use English as the medium of assessment. Officially, in partial-EMI schools,
teachers and students use L1 in addition to English as a medium of instruction. Altogether,
there were 19 participants (3 females, 16 males), comprised of biology (7), chemistry (6),
and physics (6) teachers from eight schools. Their teaching experience ranged from 3 to
35+ years, with all teachers holding a BSc degree in their subject and a postgraduate
diploma in education. Only one of the teachers reported undertaking professional
development regarding language and content instruction (a workshop). None of the
teachers were primary users of English. Their first language was Cantonese. At present,
there is no standardized English assessment for subject teachers in Hong Kong to teach at
an EMI school.
The teachers’ questionnaire
The questionnaire design was based on a comprehensive literature review and a careful
examination of validated surveys used in previous studies of teacher and student
perceptions of EMI. The questionnaire was administered in English, and the following
topics were covered (also see the Appendix):
1. demographic data; teaching experiences in EMI; views on English language skills in
science; self-reported English language ability (15 items)
2. the use of L1 and L2 in a range of science class activities (12 items)
3. the importance and difficulty of different English language skills in science
classrooms (17 items)
4. teaching practices (11 items) and teaching beliefs (11 items) about the use of
English in teaching science
 5. language challenges (27 items) and coping strategies (11 items) in EMI science
classrooms

Interviews
Interviews were conducted in Cantonese with all 19 teachers as part of a larger study. Each
teacher was given a code (T1–T19) to preserve anonymity. They were asked about their
views on EMI, particularly their opinions on using English to teach science, their language
challenges, and the coping strategies they used. For the purpose of this paper, we focus on
the specific strategies teachers use to mitigate language challenges in EMI science teaching.

Data analysis
The questionnaire data were handled with SPSS software. All variables were screened for
normality. The variables were not normally distributed and thus a chi-square test for
comparing group differences was used. Mean scores and standard errors of the EMI groups
were calculated and compared statistically.
The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and then translated from Cantonese to
English. The data were coded by one author/researcher and then checked by the other.
Four master themes were identified and are reported below.

Results
Questionnaires
Only the results of five relevant items per table are presented, although overall scores for
all items are included. See the online supplementary material for the full tables (Appendix
Tables 1–3, ELT Journal website).
Results 1: Demographic characteristics and evaluation scales
Correlation tests were run to determine the relationship between the teachers’
demographic characteristics and the scales described above. The correlation analyses
yielded the following findings. First, the teachers with lower self-reported English ability
indicated using Cantonese in science teaching activities. Second, teachers with EMI training
reported having a stronger belief in EMI. The early-full EMI teachers rated the importance
of English language skills higher, with higher self-reported English scores and more
language awareness of teaching science through English, as opposed to the late-partial EMI
teachers, whose ratings were lower. Finally, the teachers with higher language awareness
use more English in teaching science. Those with a stronger belief in EMI tended to rate the
importance of English language skills lower. Those who used more frequent coping
strategies found those strategies useful.
Results 2: Challenges
On questions of language challenges for teaching and learning science in English, the late-
partial EMI teachers believed they and their students faced more language challenges. This
is seen in the first section of Table 1, where the mean scores of teachers from the late-
partial EMI schools were higher than those of teachers in the early-full EMI schools.
Results 3: Strategies for coping with language challenges
On the prevalence of coping strategies, the early-full EMI teachers reported coping
strategies being more prevalent in their teaching. This is seen in the second section of Table
1, where the mean scores of teachers from early-full EMI schools were higher in their
responses to the prevalence of coping strategies than those of teachers in late-partial EMI
schools.
On the usefulness of coping strategies, the early-full EMI teachers reported these strategies
were more useful. This is seen in the third section of Table 1, where the mean scores of
teachers from early-full EMI schools were higher than those of teachers from late-partial
schools in their responses to most of the items.
Table 1. Sample items and responses

Mean (S.D.)
Early-Full Late-Partial
Language challenges
2. Teaching and explaining abstract scientific ideas in English 3.5 (1.51) 4.15 (.69)
9. Providing opportunities for students to receive corrective feedback in English 2.83 (1.17) 3.31 (.86)
11. Developing students’ scientific skills for investigative study in English 3.0 (1.1) 3.62 (1.2)
12. Encouraging students to generate new knowledge through group work by 3.33 (1.03) 3.69 (.76)
sharing their knowledge in English
13. Initiating students to apply existing knowledge to unfamiliar situations in 3.33 (1.03) 3.92 (.76)
English
Overall score of language challenges section (all items) 2.94 (1.07) 3.13 (.38)
The prevalence of coping strategies
3. Providing more definitions and exemplification of technical words in English 3.5 (1.05) 3.0 (1.08)
but not translating them into Chinese
4. Providing students with English language instruction during science class 3.17 (1.17) 1.85 (1.28)
6. Providing additional English explanations and input from science teachers 3.5 (1.05) 3.0 (.91)
8. Providing students with more feedback and correction on their English use in 3.5 (1.05) 3.31 (.95)
science
9. Providing collaborative teaching between English language teachers and 2.5 (1.05) 1.8 (1.36)
science teachers on the same science topic
Overall score of the prevalence of coping strategies section (all items) 4.26 (3.57) 3.26 (2.50)
 The usefulness of coping strategies
3. Providing more definitions and exemplification of technical words in English 3.67 (1.03) 3.08 (1.04)
but unnecessary to translate them into Chinese
7. Providing additional English explanations and input from science teachers 3.83 (1.33) 3.08 (.86)
9. Providing students with more feedback and corrections on their English use in 3.67 (1.03) 3.38 (.96)
science
10. Collaborative teaching between English language teachers and science 3.5 (1.64) 2.23 (1.59)
teachers on the same science topic
11. Attending tutorials and seeking study assistance outside school regarding 3.5 (.84) 2.69 (1.38)
science and English (students)
Overall score of the usefulness of coping strategies section (all items) 4.74 (3.82) 3.53 (2.64)

Note: The language challenges for learning science in English section was rated on a 5-point scale, where
1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree; the prevalence of coping strategies section and usefulness of
coping strategies section were rated on a 5-point scale, where 1=untrue of me and 5=very true of me. For the
full tables, see Appendix Tables 1–3, ELT Journal website.

Interviews
The Use of L1
The use of L1 was the most commonly reported strategy. One teacher at a late-partial
school explained that ‘Cantonese helps consolidate students’ knowledge and also it is more
convenient for teachers; as you know, many science teachers are not very good at English’
(T9). Likewise, a teacher at a late-partial school noted that ‘language is a tool to achieve
knowledge, so it’s okay to use any language as long as students understand’ (T10). These
comments were fairly representative of the teachers interviewed, whereby most teachers
expressed that it is necessary to use any language resources at their disposal to convey key
ideas. There was also concern for students who may lack the ability to communicate their
own ideas in English; as one late-partial teacher noted, ‘you can never force weaker
students to adapt to 100% English’ (T8). This comment links to a similar strategy regarding
when to use L1 reported by several early-full teachers:
‘If they really can’t express their ideas in English, I encourage them to use Chinese,
because I just want to check whether they understood. Sometimes, if they don’t
understand what I’m asking, I will repeat the question in Chinese.’ (T1)
Teachers’ comments about why they use their shared L1 with the students seem to relate
to their views about their own and/or their students’ English proficiency. Some teachers
who emphasized the students’ lack of proficiency may also struggle to communicate
complex ideas in English themselves. Hence, the teachers’ focus regarding the dual aim of
EMI (content knowledge and English language development) appeared firmly grounded in
content and represented a more flexible approach to language use than was expected from
the teachers, especially those in early-full schools.
Strategies for Dealing with texts
Because the curriculum is dependent on the use of textbooks, many teachers discussed
strategies they used for dealing with text-related challenges. ‘I have to highlight the key
points in the textbook in order to draw their attention to the key words and also to simplify
the content. … I highlight the conceptual words in questions’ (T8, late-partial). An early-full
teacher similarly noted the importance of drawing attention to specific content explicitly: ‘I
will point out which words are important’ (T6).
One early-full teacher noted that she has to rearrange the order of the topics, as the
textbook does not take into account language difficulty. ‘It arranged cell division before
reproduction; however, it didn’t consider that DNA in cells would be too difficult for the
students’ (T1). While the content may be challenging, another teacher complained that the
textbooks lack sufficient explanations to enable deeper understanding: ‘[C]ontent is mainly
presented in point form. … I will ask them to read extra information, such as the booklets
offered by the Department of Health’ (T9).

Utilizing Flipped learning

Another interesting coping strategy is flipped learning, where students first encounter new
content outside of the classroom (often online videos), and then use class time to enhance
their understanding through more interactive activities. An early-full teacher stated:
‘By using this method, if students can’t follow, they can just pause the video, and it
will waste less time during the lesson; [we can] do more exercises in class, and
generate more discussion around the topic; … they can ask me questions and discuss
with other classmates immediately to clarify their misconceptions’. (T2)
Additionally, flipped learning ‘allows students to learn at home and review the teaching
materials several times. Students have more questions to ask now’ (T3, early-full). This
teacher also mentioned the benefit of bilingual teaching videos: ‘Students can choose to
watch it in Cantonese and later in English to ensure they understand the science concepts’
(T3). Moreover, T3 mentioned utilizing social media: ‘[S]tudents can raise questions any
time they like, and they can share … video clips … and discuss them together’.

Subject-specific concerns
Biology teachers from both early-full and late-partial schools were especially vocal
regarding language-related strategies, citing the greater importance of language in the
study of biology when compared to physics and chemistry. Some of the reported strategies
include: using examples from daily life; constructing explanations together with students;
drawing simplified diagrams and mind-maps; dividing students into small groups
according to their abilities; and ‘forcing’ students to take notes in English and reflect on
their notes at home.
 ‘I am trying to force them to write more [in English] and process the idea once
more. … I insist that students jot down notes. Biology requires writing. If you like
physics, which mainly focuses on calculation, you don’t have to write much’. (T9,
late-partial)

Discussion and Implications

Correlation analysis shows that a number of teachers’ demographic characteristics (e.g.
teacher’s self-reported English proficiency) correlate with the teachers’ perceptions of
their EMI experience, suggesting that teachers with lower self-reported English proficiency
feel less confident teaching in English and may use their L1 to compensate. The early-full
EMI teachers rated the importance of English language skills higher, with higher self-
reported English proficiency and more awareness of language issues that may arise when
teaching science through English.
The descriptive analysis shows similar results regarding teachers’ perceptions between
early-full and late-partial EMI schools. The late-partial EMI teachers use more Cantonese
while teaching science. They reported lower language awareness in teaching science
through English. The late-partial teachers feel that English language skills are demanding
for their students but also feel that these skills are not that important in learning science or
may lack the ability to engage with their students’ in English. Therefore, it is not surprising
that these teachers reported a higher number of language challenges when teaching
science through English. When asked about the prevalence and usefulness of coping
strategies, the late-partial teachers reportedly used fewer strategies than those in early-full
EMI schools, used strategies less frequently, and found these strategies less useful. It may
be that when EMI is introduced at a later stage and in a setting where it is only partially
applied/supported, teachers do not feel invested in, do not feel the need to, or lack
experience in coping strategically to language challenges, despite having more of them.
Interviews helped to draw out more nuanced information from the teachers regarding the
types of strategies they use, and yet, while many teachers discussed pedagogical strategies
to address language issues, using their L1 was reported more often than any other strategy
to deliver content.

Two Perspectives
One way of viewing the prevalence of L1 use in EMI classrooms is from a negative
perspective. If EMI is supposed to enhance both language and content knowledge, many
stakeholders feel that only English should be used. They believe that through extensive
exposure to English in English-only classrooms, students will pick up the language and
develop content knowledge at the same time. However, by observing L1 and L2
interactions in actual Hong Kong secondary school EMI science lessons, Pun and Macaro
(2019) found that while late-partial EMI teachers did in fact use more L1 in the classroom,
they engaged the students in more critical thinking and discussion. The teachers asked
more higher-order questions and allowed brief discussion in the L1, which resulted in
higher quality interactions (involving evaluation, analysis, and synthesis). In the early-full
EMI lessons they observed, where students had four additional years of exposure to
English and did not use L1 in class, interactions were of a lower quality, involving more
lower-order questions and surface-level discussions that just ‘superficially cover[ed] the
content of the syllabus’ (ibid.: 74). In Pun and Macaro’s study, using the L1 may have
increased the students’ depth of processing and subsequent uptake of content knowledge,
points that the teachers in the current study discussed.
This leads to the second perspective, a positive one, where L1 use is viewed as strategic
and can enhance critical engagement with content and improve teacher–student
interaction in EMI classrooms (see Lin 2006). In viewing this issue from the perspectives
above, there are two suggestions for practice: the idealized reality and the immediate
reality.
The Idealized Reality
In the idealized reality, both teachers and students receive specialized support. This is
important since students with higher proficiency in English tend to perform better in EMI
settings. For instance, Rose and McKinley (2018) found that an IELTS score of 6.5 was the
threshold for having fewer language-related challenges for EMI university students in
Japan. In a similar context, Rose, Curle, Aizawa, and Thompson (2019) found English
language proficiency to be a statistically significant predictor of success. ESP scores were
an even stronger predictor of success, 35 per cent higher than general English proficiency.
Therefore, it would behoove administrators to provide specialized English language
support for students. In addition, it must be noted that in order to teach EMI courses
effectively, teachers need an even higher level of proficiency. This is especially true of those
teachers we interviewed who expressed concerns regarding subject-specific language in
biology, for example.
Specialized training could include the development of sophisticated strategies for coping
with language-related challenges and for learning new language alongside content more
effectively (see Macaro 2018; Thomas and Rose 2019). Although almost all of the teachers
we interviewed reported using strategies to cope with language-related challenges, many
EMI teachers still need specialized support to increase their own proficiency and strategic
behavior. In turn, their reflections on teaching courses in English are likely to improve; as
our study found, those with higher self-reported proficiency scores reflected more
positively on their EMI experiences.
The idealized reality is one where language experts work with content teachers to talk
through upcoming lessons and discuss issues that may arise pedagogically due to language-
related challenges. These meetings would be optional, until the instructor feels comfortable
teaching complex material in English. Students would also be given the same option, to
meet with a language tutor who is familiar with upcoming course content (having already
been in contact with the subject teacher) to pre-teach potentially problematic vocabulary
and work with students using a pre-emptive, proactive approach. Teachers and students
would also have the option to meet with language experts/tutors reactively to review
material covered in class and discuss particular breakdowns in communication and
understanding. Classes would be recorded so that specific interactions could be returned to
and examined in these sessions. By doing so, both teachers and students benefit from EMI
without sacrificing content knowledge or language development.

The Immediate Reality

The immediate reality is one where, until a threshold is established to be able to teach
successfully in EMI settings and/or support—as mentioned above—is provided, teachers
use the L1 as a strategy to mitigate immediate language-related challenges that arise in the
classroom. Schools should especially welcome teachers who are able to switch between L1
and L2 in order to maximize learning. For example, in our interviews, L1 was reported to
be used mostly reactively. Teachers rely on cues provided by students who demonstrate a
lack of understanding and then proceed to clarify, repeat, rephrase, or simply ask
additional questions in Chinese to elicit a response. Teachers, when not stigmatized for
their use of L1, could work to improve reactive strategies such as determining appropriate
wait times before code-switching and systematically employing language development
activities to ensure students are not relying solely on an anticipated L1 response. Such
initiatives could begin in teacher meetings and be shared among departments with no
institutional investment, a grassroots approach to more effective use of L1 and other
strategies.
If teachers are struggling with language-related issues, it is not fair to point fingers at these
teachers, who, in our study, already reflected more negatively on their science teaching
experiences. In such cases, a more pre-emptive approach is needed. Teachers can rely on
flipped-learning and communication through social media (which allows them more time
to prepare responses in L2), for instance, as some teachers from the current study
reported, to ensure students are receiving necessary exposure to content in L2 and then
engage the students in code-switched discussion using the L1 as a rich semantic resource in
class. Like learners, teachers, too, may face a steep learning curve and may require
additional time and support to adapt to EMI successfully.

Conclusion
Many challenges in EMI implementation stem from ‘language inadequacies’. Teachers
employ various coping strategies such as L1 use to compensate for themselves or to
enhance their students’ understanding. Neither group should be viewed as deficient.
Policy-makers should consider relaxing the one language for teaching policy and focus
instead on learning outcomes. Future research could explore the role of L1 and other
pedagogical strategies in EMI, demonstrating how they mitigate the language-related
challenges teachers and students face.

References
Briggs, J.G., J. Dearden, and E. Macaro. 2018. ‘English medium instruction: Comparing
teacher beliefs in secondary and tertiary education’. Studies in Second Language
Learning and Teaching. 8/3: 673-696.
Dearden, J. 2015. English as a medium of instruction - a growing global
phenomenon. London: British Council.
Evans, S. 2000. ‘Classroom language use in Hong Kong’s English-medium secondary
schools’. Educational Research Journal. 15/1: 19–43.
Galloway, N. and H. Rose. 2015. Introducing Global Englishes. Abingdon: Routledge.
Hoare, P. 2003. Effective teaching of science through English in Hong Kong secondary schools.
Dcotoral thesis, Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.
Lin, A. M. Y. 2006. ‘Beyong Linguistic Purism in Language-in-Education Policy and Practice:
Exploring Bilingual Pedagogies in a Hong Kong Science Classroom’. Language and
Education 20: 287-305.
Macaro, E, S. Curle, J. Pun, J. An. and J. Dearden. 2018. ‘A systematic review of English
medium instruction in higher education’. Language Teaching 51/1: 36-76.
Macaro, E. 2018. English Medium Instruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pun, J. and Macaro, E. 2019. ‘The effect of first and second language use on question types
in English medium instruction science classrooms in Hong Kong’. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 22/1: 64-77.
Rose, H., S. Curle, I. Aizawa and G. Thompson. 2019. ‘What drives success in English
medium taught courses? The interplay between language proficiency, academic
skills, and motivation’. Studies in Higher Education [Advanced Access].
Rose, H. and J. McKinley. 2018. ‘Japan's English-medium instruction initiatives and the
globalization of higher education’. Higher Education 75/1: 111-129.
Soruç, A. and C. Griffiths. 2018. ‘English as a medium of instruction: Students’
strategies’. ELT Journal 72/1: 38-48.
Tatzl, D. 2011. ‘English-medium masters’ programmes at an Austrian university of applied
sciences: attitudes, experiences and challenges’. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes. 10/4: 252–70.
Thomas, N. and Rose, H. 2019. ‘Do language learning strategies need to be self-directed?
Disentangling strategies from self-regulated learning’. TESOL Quarterly 53/1: 248-
257
Tung, P., R. Lam and W.K. Tsang. 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.
 Wannagat, U. 2007. ‘Learning through L2 – Content and Language Integrated Learning
(CLIL) and English as Medium of Instruction (EMI)’. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10/5: 663-683.
Yip, D.Y., D. Coyle and W.K. Tsang. 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: 77–107.

The authors:
Jack Pun is an Assistant Professor, Department of English, City University of Hong Kong. He
investigates how students overcome their language challenges in studying science through
English. His research interests are English as the medium of instruction (EMI), classroom
interaction, and English learners’ language challenges and coping strategies.
jack.pun@cityu.edu.hk
Nathan Thomas is a postgraduate researcher at the UCL Institute of Education. Previously
at the University of Oxford, his projects pertain to language learning strategies, self-/other-
regulation, and English medium instruction. He has published in leading academic journals
such as Applied Linguistics, Applied Linguistics Review, Language Teaching, System, and
TESOL Quarterly. nathan.thomas.19@ucl.ac.uk

Appendix
The modified questionnaire in this study focuses on aspects of significant indicators that
might influence the quality of classroom interactions: classroom language use (Evans
2000); teachers’ views and teaching practices about second language teaching in science
(Hoare 2003); and language challenges and strategies in EMI classrooms (Tatzl 2011). To
see the full questionnaire adapted from these previous studies, see Supplementary
Material: Appendix Tables 1–3, ELT Journal website.

View publication stats