American Journal of Educational Research
ISSN (Print): 2327-6126 ISSN (Online): 2327-6150 Website: Editor-in-chief: Ratko Pavlović
Open Access
Journal Browser
American Journal of Educational Research. 2017, 5(5), 520-532
DOI: 10.12691/education-5-5-8
Open AccessArticle

Reading Strategies for the Science Subject in Upper Elementary Classes that Follow English CBI in Northern Lebanon

Mireille Yaacoub1,

1Department of English Language and Literature, Doctoral School of Literature, Humanities, and Social Sciences, Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon

Pub. Date: May 26, 2017

Cite this paper:
Mireille Yaacoub. Reading Strategies for the Science Subject in Upper Elementary Classes that Follow English CBI in Northern Lebanon. American Journal of Educational Research. 2017; 5(5):520-532. doi: 10.12691/education-5-5-8


This article investigates instructional strategies that scaffold students’ reading comprehension of science texts in Content-Based language Instruction (CBI) settings; especially, the reading strategies that enhance comprehension of content, language and cognitive Science Process Skills (SPSs). The subjects are upper-elementary science classes in five private and public schools that follow English CBI in Northern Lebanon. We implemented observation and causal-comparative studies that use both students’ means of scores on reading assessment tests, and statistical tests of significance, to measure the effectiveness of the applied reading strategies. Results indicate that the student sample groups that used general classroom reading strategies, such as question/answer relationships and context-clue analysis, during and/or after teachers’ explanation of the lesson, have insignificant differences among means of their test scores. The student sample groups that used these strategies before the lesson’s explanation scored significantly lower averages than those that used them during and/or after. Other reading strategies, such as home reading, produced insignificant differences. The cognitive model of L2/FL acquisition and the cognitive academic language learning approach (CALLA) are used to substantiate these results.

CBI reading strategies SPSs science subject cognitive model of L2/FL acquisition CALLA upper elementary reading comprehension

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit


[1]  Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1: 1, 14-26.
[2]  Fortune, T. W., & Tedick, D. (2009). Written text analysis form. Retrieved from:
[3]  Grabe, W. (1997). Discourse analysis and reading instruction. In T. Miller (Ed), Functional Approaches to Written Text: Classroom Applications (pp. 2-15). Washington, DC: United States Information Agency. Retrieved from:
[4]  Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. (2001). Reading for academic purposes: Guidelines for the ESL/EFL teacher. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (3rd ed., pp. 187-204). USA: Heinle & Heinle.
[5]  Janzen, J., & Stoller, F. (1998). Integrating strategic reading in L2 instruction. Reading in a Foreign Language, 12:1, 251-269.
[6]  Johns, A., & Paz, D. (1997). Text analysis and pedagogical summaries: Revisiting Johns and Davies. In T. Miller (Ed.), Functional Approaches to Written Text: Classroom Applications (pp. 32-49). Washington, DC: United States Information Agency. Retrieved from
[7]  Fortune, T. W. (2014). What the research says about immersion. Center for Advanced Research on Immersion Education (CARLA). University of Minnesota. Retrieved from
[8]  Padilla, M. J. (2016). The Science Process Skill. Research Matters - to the Science Teacher. Retrieved from National Association for Research in Science Teachings (NARST) website:
[9]  Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualizing content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1:2, 216-253.
[10]  Jinks, J. (1997). The science processes. Illinois State University. Retrieved from
[11]  Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning: (CLIL) classrooms. Language Learning and Language Teaching, 20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub.
[12]  Davies, F.I. (1983). Towards a methodology for identifying information structures based on topic-type: A classroom-based approach to the analysis of texts in specific subject areas. In J.M. Ulijn & A.K. Pugh (Eds.), Reading for professional purposes: Methods and materials in teaching languages. Leuven (Belgium): ACCO.
[13]  Lebanese Ministry of Education. (1997). General Educational Curricula and their Goals. Beirut: Educational Center for Research and Development (ECRD), 1-8, 146-148.
[14]  BouJaoude, S. (2007). Twenty-first century educational skills for development in the Mediterranean: Quality and curriculum relevance. In Med. 2007: 2006 in the Euro-Mediterranean Space (pp. 82-89). Barcelona, Spain: European Institute of the Mediterranean (IEMed).
[15]  Human Science Research Council (HSRC). (2012). Towards equity and excellence. Highlights from TIMSS 2011. Retrieved from:
[16]  Lebanese Ministry of Education and Higher Education (MEHE). (2010). Quality education for growth. National Education Strategy Framework. Retrieved from
[17]  Dagher, Z. R., & BouJaoude, S. (2011). Science education in Arab states: bright future or status quo? Studies in Science Education, 47:1, 73-101.
[18]  Zeitoun, S., & Hajo, Z. (2015) Investigating the science process skills in Cycle 3 national science textbooks in Lebanon. American Journal of Educational Research, 3: 3, 268-275.
[19]  Burger, S., & Chretien, M. (2001). The development of oral production in content-based second language courses at the University of Ottawa. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58: 1, 84-102.
[20]  Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: the same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28:1, 8-24.
[21]  Center for Advanved Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA). (2014). Content-based second language instruction: What is it? Retrieved from:
[22]  Genesse, F. (1987). Learning Through Two Languages: Studies of Immersion and Bilingual Education. USA: Newsbury House.
[23]  Schleppegrell, M., & Achugar, M. (2003). Learning language and learning history: A functional linguistics approach. TESOL Journal, 12: 2, 21-26.
[24]  Met, M. (1999, January). Content-based instruction: Defining terms, making decisions. NFLC Reports. Washington, DC: The National Foreign Language Center.
[25]  Krashen, S.T. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
[26]  Rasulo, M. (2015). Popularizing the CLIL classroom. Retrieved from:
[27]  Scott, V., & de la Fuente, M. J. (2008). What’s the problem? L2 learners’ use of the L1 during consciousness-raising, form-focused tasks. Modern Language Journal, 92, 100-113.
[28]  Wang, D., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2012). Code choice in the Chinese as a foreign language classroom. Multilingual Education, 2: 3.
[29]  Faltis, C. (1996). Learning to teach content bilingually in a middle school bilingual classroom. The Bilingual Research Journal, 20:1, 29-44.
[30]  Ferguson, G. (2009): What next? Towards an agenda for classroom code-switching research, International journal of bilingual education and bilingualism, 12:2, 231-241.
[31]  Raschka, C., Sercombe, P., & Chi-Ling, H. (2009). Conflicts and tensions in code switching in a Taiwanese EFL classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12:2, 157-171.
[32]  Yao, M. (2011). On attitudes to teachers’ code-switching in EFL classes. World Journal of English Language, 1:1, 19-28.
[33]  Gumperz, J.J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. UK: Cambridge University Press.
[34]  Muthusamy, P. (2009). Communicative functions and reasons for code-switching: A Malaysian perspective. Retrieved from:
[35]  Johns, T., & Davies, F. (1983). Text as a vehicle for information: The class-room use of written texts in teaching reading in a foreign language. Reading in a Foreign Language, 1:1, 1-20.
[36]  Connecticut State Department of Education, USA. (2007). Section 7: Instructional strategies that facilitate learning across the curriculum. In Beyond the Blueprint: Literacy in Grades 4-12 and across Content-Areas. pp. 49-77.
[37]  Mohan, B. (1990). LEP students and the integration of language and content: knowledge structures and tasks. In C. Simich-Dudgeon (Ed.), Proceedings of the First Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Students' Issues. Washington, DC: OBEMLA, 113-160.
[38]  Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[39]  Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (2016). Understanding peer interaction: Research synthesis and directions. Retrieved from:
[40]  Snow, M.A. (2001). Content-based and immersion models for second and foreign language teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (3rd ed., p. 314). USA: Heinle & Heinle.
[41]  Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52:1, 119-155.
[42]  Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58:1, 44-63.
[43]  Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed Second Language Acquisition: A Literature Review. Auckland UniServices Limited: Ministry of Education, New Zealand. Retrieved from:
[44]  Stewart, T. (2003). Debate for ESOL students. TESOL Journal, 12:1, 9-15.
[45]  Ellis, R. (1997). SLA Research and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[46]  Chamot, A.U., & O' Malley, J.M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
[47]  Gay, L. R. (1996). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application. New Jersey: Merrill.
[48]  Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37: 2, 247- 273.
[49]  Armstrong, T. (2014). You’re Smarter than You Think: A Kid’s Guide to Multiple Intelligences. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.
[50]  Australian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, State of Victoria. (2008). ESL Developmental Continuum P-10.