A Survey on Chemistry Students’ Ability to Summarize Articles in English
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37630/jpb.v15i4.3927Keywords:
Bilingual Scaffolding, English for Science, English for Specific Purposes (ESP), Scientific Vocabulary, Summarizing SkillsAbstract
English is widely used as the main language of scientific communication, making the ability to read and summarize English scientific articles essential for chemistry students. However, many students experience difficulties in identifying main ideas, paraphrasing information, and understanding scientific vocabulary. This study aims to investigate chemistry students’ ability to summarize English scientific articles, including the strategies used, the role of vocabulary mastery, and the challenges encountered. An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was employed. Quantitative data were collected through vocabulary and summarizing tests, while qualitative data were obtained from classroom observations and interviews. The participants were undergraduate chemistry students with varying levels of English proficiency. The results indicate that students showed improvement in vocabulary use and summary writing after participating in multimedia-based English for Science instruction. In addition, bilingual scaffolding helped students better understand scientific texts and increased their confidence in using English. Overall, this study suggests that context-based English for Science instruction can support students’ academic reading and summarizing skills.
References
Airey, J. (2012). “I don’t teach language”: The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. AILA Review, 25, 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.25.05air
Basturkmen, H. (2018). Ideas and options in English for specific purposes curriculum development. Cambridge University Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Flowerdew, J. (2023). Disciplinary literacy and English for specific purposes: Developments and directions. English for Specific Purposes, 69, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2022.10.001
García, O., & Wei, L. (2023). Translanguaging and academic literacy development in higher education. Applied Linguistics, 44(2), 259–278. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amac040
Grabe, W., & Zhang, C. (2016). Reading–writing relationships in first and second language academic literacy development. Language Teaching, 49(3), 339–355. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000082
Hsu, W.-H. (2014). Lexical knowledge and reading comprehension in English for science and technology. English for Specific Purposes, 35, 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2013.08.001
Hyland, K. (2016). Academic publishing: Issues and challenges in the global context. Routledge.
Hyland, K., & Shaw, P. (Eds.). (2016). The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315657455
Kintsch, W. (2020). Revisiting the construction–integration model of text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 57(7), 556–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1708443
Li, M. (2022). Academic summarization in EAP contexts: Students’ strategies and challenges. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 56, 101079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101079
Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2014). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 279–315). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524601.015
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Widodo, H. P. (2022). Translanguaging practices in EMI and ESP classrooms: Implications for academic literacy. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 43(5), 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2020.1801697
Yu, S., & Kim, T. (2023). Patchwriting and paraphrasing in L2 academic writing: Evidence from summary tasks. System, 113, 102982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102982
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Kalila Yasmin, Taufik Aldi Dzamir Rabbani, Wahyunengsih Wahyunengsih
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Seluruh materi yang terdapat dalam situs ini dilindungi oleh undang-undang. Dilarang mengutip sebagian atau seluruh isi situs web ini untuk keperluan komersil tanpa persetujuan dewan penyunting jurnal ini.
- Apabila anda menemukan satu atau beberapa artikel yang terdapat dalam Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa yang melanggar atau berpotensi melanggar hak cipta yang anda miliki, silahkan laporkan kepada kami, melalui email pada Principle Contact.
- Aspek legal formal terhadap akses setiap informasi dan artikel yang tercantum dalam situs jurnal ini mengacu pada ketentuan lisensi Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
- Semua Informasi yang terdapat di Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa bersifat akademik. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa tidak bertanggung jawab terhadap kerugian yang terjadi karana penyalah gunaan informasi dari situs ini.
