This study investigates how disciplinary literacy is interactionally enacted and developed in English-medium instruction (EMI) science classrooms. Drawing on Airey’s (International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(3), 340–346, 2020) conceptualisation of disciplinary literacy as a triangular relationship among academic, workplace, and societal practices, the paper foregrounds classroom interaction as a key mediating mechanism through which disciplinary meanings and language are made accessible to students learning science through English. Adopting an interactional perspective on science pedagogy, the study examines how different communicative approaches shape students’ opportunities to engage with disciplinary knowledge and language. The study is based on qualitative classroom discourse data from four biology classes in Hong Kong schools: two from early–full EMI schools and two from late–partial EMI schools, spanning Grades 10 and 11. An integrated analytical framework is employed, combining Initiation–Response–Feedback (IRF) analysis, Mortimer and Scott’s (Meaning making in secondary science classrooms, Open University Press, 2003) typology of communicative approaches, Tsui’s (RELC Journal, 16(1), 8–30, 1985) Seventeen-Category System for pedagogical functions of talk, and discourse-analytic tools for examining the language of science. This framework enables fine-grained analysis of how interactional structures, teacher feedback, and student responses jointly shape opportunities for disciplinary literacy development. The findings reveal systematic differences across EMI contexts and grade levels. Early–full EMI classrooms, particularly at Grade 10, displayed more extended IRF sequences and greater use of dialogic teacher feedback, creating interactional space for students to engage in explanatory and causal reasoning. In contrast, late–partial EMI classrooms relied more heavily on simple IRF sequences, authoritative feedback, and strategic use of students’ first language to secure conceptual understanding, resulting in more limited opportunities for extended disciplinary talk in English. Across all contexts, students’ spoken contributions were predominantly restricted to short noun phrases and technical labels, indicating that disciplinary literacy development in EMI classrooms was often conceptual rather than productive in linguistic terms. The study argues that disciplinary literacy in EMI science classrooms is not an automatic outcome of English-medium instruction but an interactionally contingent achievement. By linking micro-level classroom discourse to macro-level conceptualisations of disciplinary literacy, the paper contributes empirical evidence to ongoing debates on EMI pedagogy and highlights the importance of interactional design, teacher feedback, and explicit attention to disciplinary functions in supporting students’ disciplinary meaning-making across languages and settings.

Interactional Pathways to Language-Specific Disciplinary Literacy in EMI Science Classrooms

期刊论文
出版模式：

开放获取
发表日期：

2026年4月23日

查看全文

Jack Pun

摘要

This study investigates how disciplinary literacy is interactionally enacted and developed in English-medium instruction (EMI) science classrooms. Drawing on Airey’s (International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(3), 340–346, 2020) conceptualisation of disciplinary literacy as a triangular relationship among academic, workplace, and societal practices, the paper foregrounds classroom interaction as a key mediating mechanism through which disciplinary meanings and language are made accessible to students learning science through English. Adopting an interactional perspective on science pedagogy, the study examines how different communicative approaches shape students’ opportunities to engage with disciplinary knowledge and language. The study is based on qualitative classroom discourse data from four biology classes in Hong Kong schools: two from early–full EMI schools and two from late–partial EMI schools, spanning Grades 10 and 11. An integrated analytical framework is employed, combining Initiation–Response–Feedback (IRF) analysis, Mortimer and Scott’s (Meaning making in secondary science classrooms, Open University Press, 2003) typology of communicative approaches, Tsui’s (RELC Journal, 16(1), 8–30, 1985) Seventeen-Category System for pedagogical functions of talk, and discourse-analytic tools for examining the language of science. This framework enables fine-grained analysis of how interactional structures, teacher feedback, and student responses jointly shape opportunities for disciplinary literacy development. The findings reveal systematic differences across EMI contexts and grade levels. Early–full EMI classrooms, particularly at Grade 10, displayed more extended IRF sequences and greater use of dialogic teacher feedback, creating interactional space for students to engage in explanatory and causal reasoning. In contrast, late–partial EMI classrooms relied more heavily on simple IRF sequences, authoritative feedback, and strategic use of students’ first language to secure conceptual understanding, resulting in more limited opportunities for extended disciplinary talk in English. Across all contexts, students’ spoken contributions were predominantly restricted to short noun phrases and technical labels, indicating that disciplinary literacy development in EMI classrooms was often conceptual rather than productive in linguistic terms. The study argues that disciplinary literacy in EMI science classrooms is not an automatic outcome of English-medium instruction but an interactionally contingent achievement. By linking micro-level classroom discourse to macro-level conceptualisations of disciplinary literacy, the paper contributes empirical evidence to ongoing debates on EMI pedagogy and highlights the importance of interactional design, teacher feedback, and explicit attention to disciplinary functions in supporting students’ disciplinary meaning-making across languages and settings.