Questioning the Sustainability of English-Medium Instruction Policy in Science Classrooms: Teachers’ and Students’ Experiences at a Hong Kong Secondary School

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper addresses practices and challenges of EMI at a secondary school in Hong Kong. The authors have adequately presented relevant literature as well as detailed findings in this paper.

Some very minor comments include:

1. A brief report on how the participants were selected, even as a case study.
2. There were many data presented here, which is fine. But it would be good to connect with data and discussion/implications. Some were presented in the 'Conclusion' section though that makes the 'Conclusion' section a bit too long. Consider insert a section on 'Discussion and Implications'
3. Some papers on 'translanguaging' and EMI might help.
4. Sung, C.C.M. (2020). Investing in English-mediated practices in the EMI university: The case of cross-border mainland Chinese students in Hong Kong. Lingua, 243, 102919.

5. Wang, D. (2019b). Multilingualism and translanguaging in Chinese language classrooms. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

6. Fang, F., & Liu, Y. (2020). ‘Using all English is not always meaningful’: Stakeholders’ perspectives on the use of and attitudes towards translanguaging at a Chinese university. Lingua, 247, 102959.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We are hugely thankful to the reviewers for their feedback. We have followed closely the reviewers’ suggestions and made revisions accordingly as listed on a point-by-point basis below.

Comments from Reviewer 1

Comment 1:

1. “A brief report on how the participants were selected, even as a case study.” - 

Response: Thank you for the feedback. We have added more details to the start of the Participants section. This includes addition information about the school selection as well as the selection of teachers and students.

 

2. “There were many data presented here, which is fine. But it would be good to connect with data and discussion/implications. Some were presented in the 'Conclusion' section though that makes the 'Conclusion' section a bit too long. Consider insert a section on 'Discussion and Implications”

 

Response: Thank you so much for the comment. We agree that the conclusion did include some discussion, especially paragraph 3. We have now moved this to the relevant location in the discussion section. As neither of the other two reviewers had an issue with our overall layout, we would prefer to retain the major implications in the conclusion section. We feel that they are more succinct and easier to access when they are presented directly below their associated summaries. Furthermore, in our experience, readers tend to focus more on the conclusion than the discussion, so we feel that they are better placed toward the end of the paper, rather than adding a separate section before the conclusion. Overall, the current version of the conclusion is 756 words long, which we feel is a better (shorter) length than before. So, we thank the reviewer for their comment, and hope that they accept our compromise.

 

3. “Some papers on 'translanguaging' and EMI might help”

Response: Thank you so much for the suggestion. We have added the suggested references in the paper on page 11.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is logical, well structured and have a very good sources. It might be better with a larger sample, but it is normal to have this kind of limitations. The didactical implications are interesting. 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We are hugely thankful to the reviewers for their feedback. We have followed closely the reviewers’ suggestions and made revisions accordingly as listed on a point-by-point basis below.

Comments from Reviewer 2

Comment 1:

“The paper is logical, well structured and have a very good sources. It might be better with a larger sample, but it is normal to have this kind of limitations. The didactical implications are interesting.”

 

Response: Thank you so much for the feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I greatly enjoyed reading this paper, which is both intellectually stimulating and very carefully written.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We are hugely thankful to the reviewers for their feedback. We have followed closely the reviewers’ suggestions and made revisions accordingly as listed on a point-by-point basis below.

Comments from Reviewer 3

Comment 1:

“I greatly enjoyed reading this paper, which is both intellectually stimulating and very carefully written.

 

Response: Thank you so much for the feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx