Navigating the interlanguage space: Chinese international students’ perceptions of a virtual chemistry laboratory course

Abstract

The unforeseen shift to virtual learning during the COVID-19 pandemic required instructors and students to face unprecedented learning challenges. Under these circumstances, Chinese international students who intended to come to the U.S. to begin their studies were required to remotely access their courses while still residing in China, which included a general chemistry laboratory course. Research suggests that English language learners (ELL) face a substantial language barrier in science-based courses as they must simultaneously be proficient in English as well as in the discipline-specific academic language; however, little is understood about how ELLs navigate these challenges in the context of a virtual chemistry laboratory course. This study examined the perceptions of Chinese international students about their learning as well as the tools/strategies they used to navigate the language barrier in the virtual laboratory course. Results suggest that although the participants perceived the virtual laboratory space as a safe and low-pressured environment to run experiments, they experienced difficulties in comprehending procedures adequately which potentially hindered them from developing a deeper understanding of the experiments. The types of strategies and tools that students used to navigate between their first language, the English language, and the academic language associated with chemistry mainly supported surface level learning. These findings underscore the need to identify and develop more sophisticated instructional strategies that help students navigate interlanguage spaces and reach higher levels of learning.

---

Introduction

There is considerable evidence that the number of English Language Learners (ELLs) enrolled in U.S. universities is on the rise. A 2019 report issued by the National Center for Education Statistics, for example, indicated that 10.1%, or approximately 5 million, students enrolled in U.S. public schools were ELLs, a noted increase from 2008 levels (8.1% or 3.8 million) (Hussar et al., 2020). Unlike K-12 public schools, U.S. universities do not track language status directly, but researchers have noted significant upward enrolment trends for both international and second-generation students, the latter of which are estimated to comprise as much as 20% of the U.S. higher education student population (Bergey et al., 2018). It seems inescapable that university instructors will need to address the challenges faced by ELLs when navigating both general and disciplinary-specific academic languages.

Supporting ELLs in college classrooms is perhaps especially salient for STEM disciplines, where there is a prioritized responsibility for advancing the strategic national interest in growing a larger, and more diverse, STEM workforce (Gamse et al., 2017; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018). In educational research, this imperative has taken the form of identifying, then remediating, sustained issues of persistence (or lack thereof) into STEM careers, especially in populations that have historically been underrepresented in the STEM field(s). There is indirect evidence that ELLs may be one of these affected subpopulations (LaCosse et al., 2020). At the K-12 level, a number of national level studies have indicated that ELLs tend to lag behind their counterparts in science-related assessments, starting as early as grade 8 (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018). Studies of a similar scope are largely absent in the higher education literature; however, practitioners note that the university setting is likely to compound the cognitive and linguistic challenges faced by ELLs in secondary science classrooms, especially as college students age (language learning is age sensitive) and disciplinary knowledge becomes more complex, abstract, and specialized (Oropeza et al., 2010; Harrison and Shi, 2016).

These challenges may manifest themselves in ELL attrition rates in STEM fields, especially in “gatekeeper” courses such as general chemistry. For example, the attrition rate of undergraduates pursuing STEM majors is more than 50% for first-year students, which is when many students are enrolled in general chemistry (Carter and Brickhouse, 1989; Astin and Astin, 1992; Woldeamanuel et al., 2014). Although the attrition rate for ELL undergraduates in STEM is unknown, literature suggests that ELLs face compounded challenges in introductory science courses, especially general chemistry, which likely adversely impacts their attrition. ELLs enrolled in general chemistry courses face a triple challenge as they must learn (1) basic conversational English, (2) content-specific language, and (3) deeper specialized language structures used in scientific inquiry (i.e., formulating hypotheses, making inferences, drawing conclusions, and asking questions). Indeed, researchers have noted that learning chemistry requires not only a knowledge of vocabulary and concepts, but also a “special way of thinking” as learning chemistry involves higher order skills such as forming an argument, analysing, synthesizing, and establishing cross connections in content knowledge and practices (Carter and Brickhouse, 1989; Woldeamanuel et al., 2014).

Understanding how ELLs navigate these types of challenges may help address issues related to attrition in chemistry. However, these challenges have not yet been examined in the virtual learning environment. The abrupt shift to remote learning imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic during the academic year of 2020–2021 potentially further exacerbated these challenges for ELLs and introduced new barriers to learning for most students (Gemmel et al., 2020; Ramachandran and Rodriguez, 2020). Virtual laboratories served a critical purpose during this time by providing meaningful learning experiences and methods to apply conceptual knowledge to solve practical problems (Singh, 2016). Although there were benefits to using virtual labs during this time, there were also some noteworthy disadvantages that left students to figure out their own strategies and tools to use to augment their learning (Chan et al., 2021). Understanding ELL students’ perceptions and the strategies and tools they used to circumvent the challenges imposed by virtual learning can provide key insights about how we can better serve the distinctive learning needs of these diverse populations across multiple modalities.

For the purposes of the current study, we were most interested in understanding how Chinese-language students, who were quarantined in Shanghai, navigated their own learning during a virtual laboratory course in general chemistry that was hosted by a U.S. university and taught in English. This qualitative study uses a phenomenographic lens to gain insight on how these ELL students navigated this virtual learning environment. The following research questions guided this study:

1. How do ELL students perceive their learning in the virtual chemistry lab course?

2. What types of language learning strategies and/or tools do ELL students use to navigate linguistic challenges?

3. How do ELL students use language learning strategies and/or tools to support their learning?

Literature review

There is a relative lack of research on the subject of ELLs in the context of STEM higher education. This may be due to the relatively specialized nature of academic disciplines at the university level; however, the scarcity may also be due, at least in part, to the intersectionality of the subject matter, which traverses a number of disciplinary boundaries, including several that are especially dynamic in the current post-pandemic context. Linguistic studies, for example, have been especially animated by movements to de-colonize higher education in the wake of high-profile social justice issues that have arisen in the past three years (Toohey et al., 2020). Research in learning design, too, has become especially salient with the global shift to remote teaching under COVID-19, the circumstances of which have opened numerous lines of inquiry into how different sub-populations, including ELLs, engage in on-line learning (Hafner, 2019; Hjalmarson and Parsons, 2021). The present study seeks to integrate recent insights gained across the fields of K-12 education, linguistic studies, and learning design to illuminate the learning experiences of a group of ELLs navigating a learning environment that is technology-mediated, not in their first language, and inquiry-driven.

Prior research in ELL education

Much of the prior research on ELL education has utilized a deficit framework, identifying significant differences between native and non-native speakers, and seeking out strategies for closing these perceived gaps. Unfortunately, low English language proficiency is often seen as the sole cause of these perceived gaps and students’ first language knowledge is ignored. In one of the most widely cited articles on the subject, M. S. Carlo and others ascribed lower test performance by ELLs to a vocabulary gap, noting that “while such children may appear to acquire oral English vocabulary quickly, they can remain well behind children who have been exposed to oral and literate English since birth” (Carlo et al., 2004, p. 191).

This perspective has been predominant in many existing studies of ELLs in K-12 education, notably in STEM fields. A single-classroom study, for example, examined how a digital tutoring program that used images in conjunction with text addressed inequities in both knowledge and self-efficacy experienced by ELLs in high school math courses (Freeman, 2011). Similarly, a study concluded that VR experiences would need to be tailored to the needs of ELLs in order to provide “educational equity to those that may easily fall behind their peers due to cultural and language barriers” (Lee et al., 2019a, p.1). These studies underscore that the differences in language, race, culture, and country of origin have been too often regarded as educational obstacles rather than assets.

Research in linguistic studies

In linguistic studies, this deficit perspective has become the subject of considerable controversy, leading to the emergence of new critical theories which seek to dismantle the privileging of the so-called native speaker and recognize the English spoken by ELLs, deemed by some as Globish, as a distinctive language in its own right (Al-Khresheh, 2015). Viewed in this way, ELLs are engaged in what is referred to as an interlanguage, which has characteristics of both English and the primary language(s) of the speaker, however, takes on additional qualities that belong to neither linguistic domain. This shift in perspective has enabled researchers to study the characteristics of interlanguage development across a number of linguistic and disciplinary contexts, including science (Muñoz Luna, 2010; Naiditch and Selinker 2017). Interestingly, a handful of researchers have suggested that scientific literacy can potentially shape an interlanguage in its own right, regardless of the language(s) spoken in other domains. While the latter viewpoint is not widely shared, many scholars do believe that scientific literacy influences the practice of trans-languaging, which is defined as the strategies that ELLs uses to move between language domains (Olander, 2010; Rees et al., 2021). In this framework, ELLs must learn to navigate a minimum of three language domains: (1) their first language, (2) the language of instruction (English), and (3) the language of the discipline (chemistry) (Fig. 1), when they participate in a virtual chemistry lab.

Fig. 1 The interlanguage space and the three overlapping language domains.

Emerging studies of interlanguage development have broadened the focus of research to include both cognitive and non-cognitive factors, with particular emphasis on the significance of context, whether disciplinary, instructional, or even social (i.e., other students) characteristics. In contrast to best practices in first language development from early childhood education, this line of inquiry emphasizes an integrated approach, in which interlanguage learning is interwoven across the curriculum, even finding its way into co- and extra- curricular activities.

Leaders in K-12 STEM education have had demonstrable success with this approach (de Araujo et al., 2018); however, it stands in even sharper contrast to the common practice in higher education, in which English as a Second Language (ESL) programs are offered separately from disciplinary-based courses, often in a non- or low-credit format. Part of the rationale for this separation are the considerable challenges inherent in integrating practice across university curricula. That said, several practitioners have pointed out that an integrated approach, emphasizing contextualized social learning, e.g., sociolinguistic approaches, is in keeping with recent pedagogical advances in both STEM and ESL education (Lee and Stephens, 2020). These advances include practices such as peer or team-based learning, as well as the deeper epistemological shift towards constructive theories of learning, which acknowledge how learners construct knowledge, regardless of domain, relative to their own personal context (Sanders, 2009; Collier et al., 2016).

Research in K-12 education

The shift toward constructivism also parallels research in inclusive teaching, which focuses on the diversity of learning and learners in a given classroom (Dewsbury and Brame, 2019; Suh et al., 2020; Addy et al., 2021). This diversity can refer to ELLs broadly, but K-12 research further emphasizes that ELLs are not themselves a homogenous group (Lee and Stephens, 2020). It has become increasingly recognized that there are further differentiations that can be made between and within this subpopulation, many of which have pedagogical implications (de Araujo et al., 2018). K-12 research has focused on the extent to which an ELL has had prior exposure to the English language, whether in the home or at school (Lee and Stephens, 2020), for example, and ESL scholars have noted the influence of different prior languages on English language learning (including Chinese specifically, see Shao et al., 2019) (Basnight-Brown and Altarriba, 2007). The consensus seems to be that there is no single model of who an ELL is, nor is there a one-size-fits-all approach to teaching and learning that will address the range of cognitive ability, prior experience, and, perhaps most importantly, metacognitive development, of ELL students.

Metacognition. Indeed, the K-12 literature emphasizes metacognition as a critical factor in STEM learning for ELLs, in which students participate in a range of increasingly sophisticated communication strategies for integrating science and language (Ardasheva et al., 2015; Grapin et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2020; Haas et al., 2021). This represents a marked shift from teaching “discrete elements of vocabulary (lexicon) and grammar (syntax) to be internalized by learners” to an approach focused on “language [as] a set of dynamic meaning-making resources learned through participation in social contexts (language-in-use) (Lee and Stephens, 2020, p. 428). Linguistic theorists might label this a shift not just towards pragmatics, but also semantics, i.e., the deeper meaning that language represents. In the context of STEM education, this means that language is used not just to convey the meaning of individual words, but a deeper set of values and beliefs that serve as the foundation of scientific thought and reasoning (de Araujo et al., 2018; Oliveira et al., 2019; Smith-Keiling and Hyun, 2019). For example, a 9th grade science teacher's instruction on rock cycle focused more on defining classification terms such as “igneous,” and “metamorphic” than explicitly providing opportunities to use the linguistic resources to express the science processes using their own semantic conceptions (Bruna et al., 2007).

Drawing on the K-12 literature, researchers in higher education have noted similar challenges with the “high linguistic demand” of many terms used in chemistry and argued for tailored pedagogical strategies to address specific challenges, including factors such as context, semantics, and dual representations, that ELLs may face (Pyburn et al., 2013; Vladušić et al., 2016; Rees et al., 2019). Among others, one proposed strategy is the use of metacognitive scaffolding, or repeated practice, across multiple contexts (Rees et al., 2019), as well as teach-backs, in which students explain how they solved a particular problem to another student (Mercier et al., 2021).

Experiential learning. One clear best practice to emerge from these intersecting lines of inquiry is the implementation of hands-on learning activities, often formal or informal labs, which have had demonstrable success in improving science learning among ELLs in K-12 settings. As Oliveira et al. (2019), succinctly summarize:

Conducting science investigations in small groups provides ELLs with an authentic context in which to communicate with peers (i.e., opportunity to make purposeful use of English), and hence improve their language proficiency (Jackson and Ash, 2012; Shaw et al., 2014; Zwiep et al., 2011). These studies also provide evidence that the multiple modes of communication (gestural, oral, graphic, and textual) and the concrete nature of inquiry experiences help make science content more accessible to ELLs (than decontextualized textbook knowledge), fostering increased science achievement.

In the context of higher education, the corollaries to hands-on learning are experiential learning, especially lab-based science, and, more broadly, inquiry-guided learning (IGL). There are only a handful of extant studies (Lee et al., 2020) that focus specifically on how ELLs learn in university laboratory settings, however, they are suggestive that there may be similar benefits, with the addition of opportunities to learn from the instructor as a role model of (presumably) a practicing scientist and scientific researcher. At the same time, there is evidence that simply introducing hands-on activities in and of themselves is insufficient to reach the higher order thinking outcomes that are especially valued in the higher education context (Lee and Buxton, 2013; Oliveira et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2019b); and that intentional design is needed to maximize the benefits across the spectrum of ELLs (Freeman and Kochan 2012).

Research in learning design

The design challenge was put to the test in the spring of 2020, when STEM instructors across the world shifted to remote teaching and learning, including the considerable challenge of re-creating hands-on activities, especially labs, in the virtual environment (Baker and Cavinato, 2020; Njoki, 2020; Wang and Ren, 2020). Out of exigency, early learning design research focused largely on explicating designs and tools, however, recent scholarship has largely given virtual labs a mixed report card; especially when it comes to supporting higher-order thinking skills (Ali and Ullah, 2020; Wilson, 2020), suggesting that they are not likely to supplant face-to-face activities as the dominant instructional modality. For ELLs in particular, virtual formats have been shown to dampen the effects of social learning broadly; and language learning in particular (Viera and Kosheleva, 2017; Boothe, 2020).

That said, there is evidence that virtual science labs also provided affordances for certain types of learners, including, to some extent, ELLs. Even prior to the outbreak of the global pandemic, emerging evidence suggested that virtual labs may provide ELLs with immediate access to linguistic support; greater integration of visual instructions; and a heightened sense of security, i.e. the ability to make, and learn from mistakes, whether scientific or linguistic (Rao, 2015; Chen and Kent, 2020; Nurieva, and Garaeva; 2020). The balance of the benefits and costs of virtual learning for ELLs has yet to be studied in the context of higher education; a gap the present study seeks to address by examining how a group of Chinese-language students (n = 10) engaged with an English-language virtual chemistry lab taught under COVID-19 conditions.

Conceptual framework

Trans-Languaging as a conceptual framework offers ways to examine language domains as fluid, integrated and operating in ways that deepen student comprehension of content. In the context of multilingualism, it suggests that instead of viewing multiple languages as separate compartments, languages should be considered interdependent because it is necessary to use features from each to construct meaning (Vogel and García 2017). This interdependence fosters the interlanguage space, where students develop their learning. In the current study, trans-languaging allows us to understand the strategies that ELLs use to navigate between the three language domains (i.e., (1) Chinese as the first language, (2) English as the language of instruction, and (3) chemistry as the discipline-specific academic language) to support their learning in the virtual chemistry lab course (Fig. 1).

Methods

This qualitative study was designed to gain insights about the perceptions of Chinese international students of their learning in a virtual chemistry laboratory course. It explores the questions of how Chinese-speaking ELL students perceived their learning in a chemistry virtual laboratory course and the types of strategies these students used to navigate this challenging environment.

The current study's design was informed by phenomenography. Phenomenography is a methodological framework that studies the different ways in which people think of a lived experience, concept, or phenomena. Unlike phenomenology, which aims to study a given phenomenon (i.e., a common/shared experience), phenomenography is focused on studying how people experience a given phenomenon in different ways (Marton, 1981). Phenomenography has been applied to answer many types of questions related to chemistry education and science education studies including questions about students’ ideas of a scientific concept, students’ ways of thinking about a topic, and perceptions about science and scientific processes (Marton, 1994; Lybeck et al., 1988; Carlsson, 2002; Ingerman and Booth, 2003; Ellis, 2004).

In this study, we were interested in the various learning experiences of a small cohort of Chinese students in the virtual chemistry lab course under extenuating circumstances during the pandemic; therefore, we defined the phenomenon as the virtual laboratory course. Given the shortage of research on this topic and the novelty of these circumstances, we aimed to use this framework to understand the diverse ways that this cohort of students experienced the virtual chemistry lab course; particularly, how they perceived Lab Sims, and how they attempted to used strategies/tools to navigate the language barrier.

Participants

The participants in this study were classified as “English language learners.” In the context of this study, ELLs are undergraduates who are in the process of acquiring English language fluency, and who come from non-English-speaking backgrounds to a U.S. university. The participants in this study uniquely fit these criteria as they were Chinese-speaking undergraduates in the process of learning English while residing in Shanghai and were enrolled in a major U.S. university.

All international students from China were required to pass the College English TEST (CET) in order to enrol in the university. Many participants were exposed to English before college; however, English is typically taught in the traditional grammar-translation method emphasizing the written form more than the spoken form (Wan, 2001). Although all participants passed the CET, they still experience many challenges with using English as the primary language of learning. The participants in this study fulfilled the requirements to be admitted to the university and had planned to immigrate to the U.S. to begin their courses in the Fall 2020 term; however, due to travel restrictions imposed on China during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, they had to complete all their coursework remotely.

A total of ten participants were recruited. Announcements about the study and recruitment efforts were aimed at the students enrolled in the first semester general chemistry course that used Lab Sims. A schedule to sign up for interviews was posted on the learning management system by a member of the research team. Participants were in the age range of 18–20 years old; there were four female students and six male students. All participants were enrolled in a first semester general chemistry laboratory course, along with a general chemistry lecture course, with virtual instruction hosted through the learning management system.

Virtual laboratory platform

When shifting to remote instruction during the pandemic, the instructors made the decision to adopt a virtual laboratory software that would help students visualize laboratory tasks in real time. After reviewing the software options available to the university at that time, we implemented the Hayden-McNeil (https://haydenmcneil.com/) lab solutions platform, which was a part of Macmillan Learning, called Lab Simulations (Lab Sims). Lab Sims was selected because it provided a systematic and realistic simulation of the laboratory experience, and it included general chemistry experiments at an affordable price point. Additionally, it was useful that Lab Sims provided a practical experience of operating in a chemistry lab to help students practice basic lab skills: the user is prompted to “wear” personal protective equipment (i.e., gloves, lab coat and goggles) before entering the work area, which is displayed as a lab bench with three shelves containing materials, glassware, and instruments on the top right corner of the screen (see Fig. 2). In addition to providing the necessary reagents for general chemistry experiments, the interface is programmed to have users follow proper waste disposal and safety protocols such as emptying solutions, cleaning glassware, allowing containers/materials to cool before handling them (Fig. 3). The instructors were able to choose general chemistry experiments to be assigned, which came with background readings, procedures, and post-lab assessments. The software was set up so that the students were able to run an assigned experiment as many times as they needed during a set timeframe.

Fig. 2 Screenshot of Lab Sims’ virtual lab bench when running the acid base titration experiment. Permissions obtained from Macmillan Learning. Copyright 2022 by Macmillan.

Fig. 3 Screenshot of Lab Sims’ warning message (“Materials must be properly disposed of as waste”), which is prompted when trying to discard the hydrochloric acid solution from the graduated cylinder into the sink during the molar mass of magnesium experiment. Permissions obtained from Macmillan Learning. Copyright 2022 by Macmillan.

During the weekly virtual class meetings on Zoom, the instructor would introduce the experiment, provide a demonstration on Lab Sims and place groups of students in breakout rooms to run the experiment. The instructor and TA would monitor the breakout rooms. Near the end of the class period, the instructor reconvened the students to discuss any problems, reflect on the data and draw conclusions about the experiment. Students were encouraged to review their data for analysis and complete the post-lab assessment before the next class.

To enrol in Lab Sims, students were required to purchase an access code through the Hayden-McNeil website. Once an access code was purchased, students were able to register and begin using the software on their internet browser on any device. To access a new experiment, the users first click on the name of the experiment from the home landing page, then they are routed to the background information page containing the concepts and applications of the experiment. The next page allows students to access the procedures and open the virtual lab bench simulation to begin the experiment. The students are expected to have two tabs open in the browser – one to view the procedures and one to run the virtual experiment.

Data collection

The method of data collection used in phenomenography is primarily open and deep interviews that allow unexpected lines of reasoning, which may lead to new reflections and a common understanding between the participant and the researcher (Marton and Booth, 1997). Since phenomenographical research seeks to study the experiences of multiple people, data collection is focused on describing the variation in experiences across the group of participants instead of providing rich descriptions of individual experiences (Dall’Alba et al., 1993; Walsh et al., 1993; Trigwell, 2000). Accordingly, this qualitative study employed a one-on-one, semi-structured interview protocol as the main method of data collection. The goals of the interviews were to ask relevant questions that address the various experiences of students in the course related to the research questions and offer opportunities for participants to discuss alternate ideas and promote reflection.

The interview protocol consisted of four main sections: (1) informed consent, (2) demographics, (3) rapport building questions, and (4) questions related to students’ experiences in the virtual lab course and their use of self-help strategies in the course. Questions such as “How did you find the experiments on Lab Sims?” and “What were some challenges you faced with English being the language of instruction in this course?” were included to prompt participants to discuss their perceptions. A full copy of the interview protocol has been included in the appendix.

In-person interviews were scheduled at the end of the Fall 2020 semester after students had completed the final laboratory exam. One-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted using Zoom software (https://zoom.us/) and lasted approximately 25–35 minutes with each participant. A total of 10 interviews were conducted. All interviews were audio-recorded, and videos were kept disabled. Participants’ names and any pertinent identifiable information were de-identified and pseudonyms have been used to discuss the data.

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the university's Internal Review Board with the Office of Research Protections (Case ID: STUDY00016332). Informed consent was obtained from all participants in this study.

Translation validity. During the interviews, participants were encouraged to speak in the language they were most comfortable with and to switch between Chinese/English if necessary. Accordingly, all participants spoke both in Chinese and English during the interviews. A live Chinese and English translator/interpreter was present to assist students in conveying their thoughts in English if needed. The interpreter also served as a Teaching Assistant (TA) in the course and had led weekly discussions on the Shanghai campus with the students. The interpreter was a Chinese native and fluent in the English language. During the interviews, multiple attempts were made to check the translations with the participants. Member checking was employed by asking participants to validate their responses at the end of the interviews to ensure trustworthiness of the data (Creswell, 1994). The interpreter also helped with reviewing each transcript to check for unclear points. These measures were taken to increase confidence and validity in the data; however, we acknowledge that it is not always possible to ensure that “the ‘best’ translation has precisely the same meaning as the original” spoken word (Taber, 2018).

Data analysis

In accordance with phenomenography, the audio-recorded files were transcribed verbatim, and the iterative process of looking for similarities and differences among them began.

1. Structural coding (Saldana, 2021) was used in the first round of data analysis. As such, transcripts were initially coded based on the specific research questions of this study: (1) how the students described virtual learning using Lab Sims, (2) how students responded to language-based challenges that may have occurred during the course, and (3) the types of strategies and/or tools the students used to navigate these types of challenges. Responses related to the study's research questions were identified and notes about the varying aspects of students’ responses were made. Transcripts were read repeatedly to collect all aspects reported in the data with the same degree of acuity (Marton and Booth, 1997).

2. From the responses highlighted and the notes made, we used pattern coding (Saldana, 2021) in the second round of data analysis to search for patterns relating to students’ perceptions of their learning in the course (e.g., “I liked using Lab Sims,” or “It was hard to follow the procedures,” etc.). These patterns were grouped into categories (e.g., positive or negative perceptions of Lab Sims, challenges in understanding procedures, and helpful strategy). All patterns were checked again in the data and then again in relation to overlapping categories. The categories shifted in response to re-reading the data.

3. The authors came together at this point in analysis to discuss their established categories to ensure inter-rater reliability. Representative excerpts from the transcripts were discussed that supported each category. Our discussions led to a re-working and re-grouping of some categories and re-classification of representative excerpts. With all authors in agreement, a final version of the category descriptions was established.

4. The final categories and excerpts from students’ responses created the “outcome space” in this phenomenographic study (Marton and Booth, 1997). These final categories fell under three main themes, which we labelled as assertions: (1) virtual labs foster a safe environment for ELLs (e.g., the ability for the students to make mistakes and repeat experiments as needed); (2) students struggle with trans-languaging in the lab setting (e.g., students experience linguistic challenges when making meaning between the Chinese, English, and chemistry languages); (3) students need more sophisticated metacognitive strategies to navigate (virtual) interlanguage spaces (e.g., the students’ use of tools and strategies do not provide sufficient interlanguage support required for deeper understanding of the chemistry topics).

To enhance the credibility of the findings, the coding team consisted of three coders, two of whom are researchers from outside of the campus where the course was taught, both with experience in qualitative methods.

Research positionality

We as researchers and authors of the study would like to acknowledge our positionality as we approached this work. We understand that our personal positions have the potential to influence the lenses through which we interpreted the data and conducted this research. Our team consists of three women from different racial and ethnic backgrounds, and all three of us identify as cisgender. The first author, who is also the instructor for the virtual laboratory course being evaluated in this study, is a first generation, Asian Indian woman who identifies with the shared experience of being an immigrant from a different culture and as a speaker of non-English languages. As such, the author can identify on some level with the participants of this study. The second author is an African American science instructor of college-level students. The third author, who is an educational researcher (not a scientist), identifies as a White woman with considerable experience working with universities outside of the United States. All three of us have achieved the highest degrees (PhD) within the academic system and recognize that the same system may not set up others for success in the same way. We recognize that our personal experiences and opinions should be clear in the context of this study as we practice self-awareness through the research process.

Results and discussion

The purpose of this research was to understand how a virtual chemistry laboratory course was experienced by international students who were in the unique position of being remotely enrolled in the course during the pandemic in the U.S. while residing in China. To best demonstrate the emerging themes that answer the research questions, we have organized this section into three assertions: (1) virtual labs foster a safe environment, (2) challenges with trans-languaging (i.e., moving between each language domain), and (3) the need for more sophisticated metacognitive strategies.

Assertion 1: virtual labs foster a safe environment for ELLs

It is well documented that students, regardless of language background, experience anxiety about conducting laboratory work and although anxiety can support performance on easier tasks, it can also hinder performance on more difficult tasks (Humphreys and Revelle 1984). In the case of chemistry, anxiety can be related to the fear of physically handling unfamiliar equipment and chemicals, which is associated with high pressure and information overload during experimentation (Loonat, 1996; Bowen, 1999; Eddy, 2000). Traditionally, lab courses include pre-laboratory exercises to prepare students for the upcoming experiment; however, these exercises are typically conducted in the physical space of the lab, which can still make students feel like they are walking into a high-pressured situation.

Most students (7 out of 10) found the virtual lab environment to be realistic, especially in terms of the verisimilitude of the (visualizations) which can have a positive effect on their perception of learning. Lin stated, “The website is good looking and [has] fine and rich details. You can see real water on the [simulation] sitting there, not like it's just a figure on the bottle. So […] it's realistic” [Interview #3]. Similarly, Yan mentioned that the platform was “how to say that word? Lifelike? It's pretty real as a simulation” [Interview #5]. Visual animations like adding solutions to glassware, changes in the colors of solutions during chemical reactions, etc., were some of the favorite features of the platform. “The virtual lab is kind of amazing for me because you can show such phenomenon [chemical reactions]. Probably if we are in [real] lab, we can’t see the phenomena…” Zhen noted that there was added value in being able to see simulated chemical reactions occurring live on the screen as it made the experience feel more “real” [Interview #1]. A previous study on undergraduates’ perceptions of an organic chemistry virtual lab simulation program suggested that students who found the simulation to be easy to use and liked the “look and feel” are more likely to achieve a higher grade in the course (Woodfield et al., 2005). This finding indicates that students’ perceptions of Lab Sims is generally favorable in terms of its “look and feel,” which may play an important role in their learning.

Students also recognized that Lab Sims provided a low-pressure space to explore, make mistakes and repeat experiments if needed. Yan recognized that in the in-person lab, there would be limitations on the usage of reagents and materials due to waste and disposal protocols. However, in this case, there was no fear of “running out” of a reagent. Yan stated,

“We don’t have to worry about the materials, or somethings like that. I mean, just clicking mouse and watching screens are not like doing experiments in real lab and transitional liquids between tubes. I mean, since we can’t do the experiment, but under such a situation, it's pretty good” [Interview #5].

To maintain focus on lab safety practices, Lab Sims has integrated warning prompts that stop the user from mishandling equipment and remind the user to properly dispose of chemical waste. Many students (7 out of 10) indicated that they found these to be helpful and practical training reminders of best practices involved in working in a chemistry lab. For example, Lin discussed these warnings enabled him to correct his mistakes:

“I think [Lab Sims] helped me a lot. Not only providing me some equipment, some chemical matters. Also notices [warnings] like you need to wait until the vessel cools down, or you need to put some vessel in [water bath] …. It will cause some pretty serious problems [in real labs]. So, it gave me some chances to correct my mistakes” [Interview #3].

Research has shown that one of the reasons undergraduate ELLs are reluctant to dive in and conduct experiments in face-to-face general chemistry labs is the perceived risk of misinterpreting the procedures and potentially causing safety issues in the laboratory (Lee et al., 2020). Although the difficulty in reading and interpreting procedures was still apparent in the virtual lab environment (to be discussed in Assertion 2), students in this study seemed to be more engaged in conducting the experiment potentially because they were less afraid of making critical errors and understood that procedures can be repeated indefinitely. Shang stated, “There's no risk online. There's no health risk in a virtual lab” [Interview #8]. Similarly, Yimin mentioned, “I think I like it because you can do it repeatedly. And if you think you have something wrong, you can just do it again and again” [Interview #2]. Zhi also noted “I soon found that doing online is also helpful because I can repeat the experiment… I am not afraid of making mistakes” [Interview #6].

This finding is consistent with a previous study on undergraduates’ responses to an organic chemistry virtual lab simulation program, which highlighted that student generally favored the program because it gave them the opportunity to conduct experiments without making a mess in the wet lab and allowed students to freely run “what if” type experiments and “blow things up” (Woodfield et al., 2005). This idea of laboratory learning in a low-pressured and safe space should be further explored as it seemed to have assuaged a critical barrier for ELL students and encouraged a greater level of involvement in conducting the experiment.

Assertion 2: students struggle with trans-languaging in the lab setting

Mastering the specialized and technical academic language of chemistry imposes an additional challenge to students who are still in the process of learning basic conversational features of the English language (Collier, 1995). These students are, in a sense, navigating (i.e., trans-languaging) at least three languages: their own first language, English, and chemistry, simultaneously (see Fig. 1). This juggling act can present multiple learning challenges. From a cognitive standpoint, analyzing and synthesizing information quickly in a chemistry lab, reading technical instructions, then applying the steps in real time can impose overload as these types of tasks require more attention because language proficiency, in either chemistry or English or both, may not be fully automatized (Cummins, 1984).

In the current study, we found that many students (8 out of 10) were unable to process the procedural steps adequately, which may have hindered them from forming a deeper understanding of the experiment. Liang stated that although she can read the words in the text, it was still very difficult to interpret and perform the tasks described:

“So, when I read it, I can see what is asking me to do but I don’t know how to do it…. So, pressing the burettes in Part A, there is a sentence saying that front of the burette by pressing and holding the stop clock for about two seconds. I don’t know how to repeat this step in the virtual lab” [Interview #10].

Here, Liang is referring to a key step in the acid base titration experiment, where the titrant is gradually being added to the analyte by clicking on the burette's stopcock intermittently. The students’ comprehension was derailed by the wording, and they seemed to have missed that the overall purpose of this step was to incrementally add sodium hydroxide to the flask containing hydrochloric acid to find the volume of neutralization.

Recent research suggests that these kinds of cognitive overload occurrences can be ameliorated through the integration of external features such as illustrations, contextual cues, or linguistic simplification that assuage the language barrier in chemistry for ELLs (Lee and Orgill, 2021). The students made similar recommendations here, especially related to vocabulary and visual organization. For example, David discussed that pictures in the procedures would help them fill in the gaps when they are confronted with unfamiliar words: “…a picture would be more direct because reading takes a lot of time because there are so many words and long sentences. It's not easy for English learners” [Interview #7]. Another recommendation was to emphasize key parts, “maybe make the important sentences to be highlighted,” mentioned Lin [Interview #3]. Another student suggested that separating the tasks to perform in the procedures from the parts where they are asked to document data would make it easier for them to follow the steps: “I think you can add parentheses where you are giving things like ‘read and record the liquid body to meniscus’… You can separate the experiment from recording” [Interview #9]. Yan added that “…it can be divided in smaller steps, or you can make the words easier to understand” [Interview #5].

Language processing was not the only trans-languaging challenge these students faced in the virtual lab environment. Students were required to complete pre-lab activities and post-lab quizzes to prepare and reflect on the experiment, which required the use of higher order thinking skills to predict, hypothesize, form interpretations based on experimental concepts and synthesize probable conclusions. The cognitive struggle to conduct these types of activities was evident, especially during timed quizzes: “That's…a challenge to me because I always try to find the best way to express my idea, but you know the time is limited. So, I have to be quick on that,” stated Yimin [Interview #2]. Ling stated, “Sometimes I don’t understand the questions. I think their languages are blurred and I don’t know what the question is asking about” [Interview #9]. Other students were unable to get past specialized vocabulary. Zhi mentioned that it was challenging to follow because “Sometimes, some vocabularies [need to be translated] … [for example] ‘increment’” [Interview #6].

In this particular case, the word “increment” seemed to have disrupted students’ meaning-making processes as they were unable to find an accurate and meaningful translation that could be applied in this specific context of conducting the acid-base titration experiment. According to the Googled definition, increment (noun) is “an increase or addition, especially one of a series on a fixed scale.” This definition includes terms that ELLs are most likely unfamiliar with such as “series” or “fixed” or “scale” in everyday life, which impedes the process of understanding what “increment” means. Unfortunately, many ELL students in this study relied on such Googled definitions, and other readily available, commercial dictionaries and bilingual dictionaries that have often broader, not chemistry content-specific definitions, and translations to some words are not always available and/or accurate (Abedi et al., 2005) (to be further discussed in Assertion 3). This finding suggests that when faced with ambiguities or incongruities related to linguistic understanding (i.e., inability to form an accurate meaning of chemistry terms), the students tended to apply trans-languaging strategies (i.e., look up definitions in English, translate to Chinese and form meanings in chemistry) that resulted in incomplete knowledge creation, especially at the level of higher order thinking.

Assertion 3: students need more sophisticated metacognitive strategies to navigate (virtual) interlanguage spaces.

Recent research on ELLs in the K-12 classroom has highlighted the critical role of metacognition, i.e., the strategies students use to apply language in the academic context (Ardasheva et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2020; Haas et al., 2021). In the case of all the students in this study, their responses provided key insights about the metacognitive strategies and tools employed, or in many cases not employed, in the university setting. The tool they used most often was a translator or dictionary. Jian stated, “I sometimes use a translator – I use my phone to maybe search for the vocabulary to get to know what it means” [Interview #4]. Although the use of a dictionary or translator have been used as an accommodation for ELL students previously, research suggests that most translators and dictionaries tend to offer common definitions which make it challenging for ELL students to figure out which meaning to follow without understanding the context of the terminology (Snow, 2010). As such, it is evident when a student inputs a “googled” response in assignments as these types of responses contain phrases or words that are usually taken out of context.

Yan: “If I think I need more explanation or something to help me understand about the definition or about some calculations, I will try to search some resources on internet.”

Interviewer: “What types of resources or sites did you find helpful?

Yan: “Actually, I can’t tell some specific sites…I have searched some definitions on site I googled” [Interview #5].

One of the major benefits of this virtual lab course was that the students can use online resources to enhance their learning; however, Yan's comment highlights that knowing how to look up information is not enough for effective learning. It would appear that these students have reasonable digital literacy skills (how to access, create, and share digital information) and are tech-savvy, but may lack the ability to effectively transition those skills into scientific understanding. Helping students learn how to bridge digital literacy with scientific literacy would be highly advantageous as learning becomes increasingly digitalized.

The shift to virtual labs may have enabled students to have more immediate access to online language resources, such as online translators, or visualizations, such as with Lab Sims, but this shift also constrained opportunities for the students to practice language-in-use, whether as modelled by the instructor, or through peer interaction. Jian stated:

“Before the virus, I preferred to study in the class because I can cooperate with my classmates and we can solve the problems together; however, because of the virus I must stay at home, so I cannot share my opinion with classmates face-to-face. It's really hard for me to study” [Interview #4].

To circumvent the challenge of not being able to work with others in-person, several students mentioned that they used group chats during class to collaborate and share ideas, such as WeChat (Chinese instant messaging and calling app for smart phones) and/or WhatsApp (international messaging and calling app for smart phones). In these settings, however, the predominant language of communication is (likely) Chinese, which provides little opportunity to advance their English language proficiencies and cultivate an interlanguage. Fig. 4 shows a synopsis of the types of tools students described here to navigate between the language domains.

Fig. 4 The tools that students used to trans-language.

Studies of online learning have shown that both synchronous (e.g., Teams, Zoom) and asynchronous (WhatsApp) online modalities provide challenges for students, regardless of language status (Wiederhold, 2020; Bailenson, 2021). Even “live” technology mediation challenges a learner's ability to perceive and process non-verbal communication cues, such as facial expressions or body language. For these reasons, learning design theorists place considerable emphasis on alternative means for bolstering instructor and social presence within online spaces (Garrison et al., 2010). The students in this study seemed to have recognized the challenge they faced in the virtual environment, in this case lower levels of social learning, but they lacked the ability to navigate it effectively, settling on sub-optimal substitutions, i.e., the online chat groups.

Conclusions

The findings identified in this study should be taken as insightful, rather than generalizable, knowledge. Like most phenomenographical studies, the aim of the research was to shed light on how actors, in this case a small cohort of Chinese-language college students based in Shanghai, perceive a given phenomenon, in this case, a virtual English-language chemistry lab. This approach was chosen partly because of the unprecedented nature of the latter phenomenon, which arose from the extraordinary circumstances of the global COVID-19 pandemic, but also because of how limited our overall understanding is of the learning experiences of ELLs in university-level science courses, regardless of instructional modality.

As we shift to more of a blended instructional approach in the post-pandemic era, the results of this study offer practical insights to chemistry educators about ways to better support ELL students in laboratory courses. For example, chemistry educators can offer virtual laboratory experiences as pre-laboratory exercises, which would provide a safe space for ELL students to navigate linguistic challenges at their own pace. Being able to work through the linguistic challenges ahead of time in this way may allow ELLs to focus more on gaining higher order skills necessary to learn chemistry. One of the findings showed that ELLs were unable to find clear and accurate definitions of chemistry terms using their own resources. To better support ELLs in navigating the interlanguage space, educators can provide embedded glossaries to define chemistry terms using chemistry-specific definitions and examples.

Additionally, the insights gained support a conceptual shift from deficit to asset-based models for both research and practice in working with ELLs across multiple disciplines. The experiences of the Chinese-language students in this study, while focused on a single course, shed light on the need to identify and develop more sophisticated metacognitive strategies that enable students to successfully navigate trans-language spaces and reach higher levels of learning in chemistry.

It should be noted that this space also includes students who may be native English speakers, but who are relative newcomers to the advanced language of chemistry. It seems likely that many of the challenges faced by ELLs mirror those faced by other students, differing perhaps in degree or intensity, but suggestive of potential interventions that may benefit more than just the ELLs in the classroom. Indeed, the literature on inclusive teaching is replete with similar examples, where affordances provided to accommodate the needs of one group have provided wider benefits to others (Gradel and Edson, 2009; Rao and Torres, 2016; Rao and Tanners, 2016). This research runs the risk, however, of treating ELLs as a single group of subpopulations, which, as noted previously overlooks key differences in how different groups, or even individual students approach trans-language situations.

In the case of this study, the students are all from China, and were engaging in online learning through a U.S. university, which limits the representative claims that can be made from their insights. Along with other countries in East Asia, China is moving towards the universal adoption of English as the primary medium of instruction in higher education (Galloway et al., 2020). The majority of students included in this study indicated that they have enrolled in multiple courses that used English as the language of instruction. English language instruction is, however, less and less likely to have been provided by a person who has spoken English since birth, as was the case for this study. Indeed, a number of studies have indicated that the majority of English language instruction is shifting towards non-native speakers, as the latter have greater insight and experience with learning global English later in life (Calafato, 2019; Floris and Renandya, 2020).

The shift towards English language instruction in East Asia, and elsewhere, is driven by the global economic realities, in which global or World Englishes, increasingly function as the lingua franca, or a shared language, of business, politics, and knowledge production inside and outside of academia. In other words, the development of proficient English language speakers is a matter of strategic importance that supports the development of a diverse and interconnected STEM workforce. Identifying integrated strategies to support the success of these students in advanced science fields, which Fig. 4 illustrates, is imperative, but not just because of the economic opportunities it provides to the students and their families, nor just because it benefits universities in English-speaking countries who are seeking to attract and retain international students. In the long run, these strategies may serve to enable everyone to speak the shared language of science.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

Appendices

Interview guide

I. Informed consent

A. Hi_________________, I want to thank you for taking time to meet with me today. I appreciate your insights and help with this project.

Your TA, _________, is also joining us for this interview. He is available to help us translate between English and Chinese. Please feel free to speak in either English or Chinese and do not hesitate to ask him for help with translating your thoughts.

Before we begin, I’d like to ask – did you receive the Informed Consent document I emailed you?

i. Did you have a chance to read it?

ii. Do you have any questions about it?

iii. Do you agree to participate in this interview? Do you agree to be audio-taped during the interview? If so, could you please sign this copy of the Informed Consent document? Thank you.

II. Demographic questions

A. Where were you born? Age? Gender?

B. Which language(s) did you grown up speaking?

D. How long have you been learning the English language?

E. How many courses have you taken that required the English language so far?

III. Rapport building questions

A. Is this your first year in college? Which courses are you currently taking?

B. How do you feel about your coursework so far?

IV. Learning chemistry virtually during the pandemic

A. A lot has changed this year since the COVID-19 lockdown. The pandemic forced all of us to change the way we attend, participate in class, and even change our study habits. Think about how classes were for you before the pandemic lockdown and how different things are now. How have you changed your own approach to learning since the shift to remote learning?

i. Do you find your study habits changing? If so, how are you studying differently during now?

B. Before the pandemic, this course would have been offered to you to be in a physical laboratory, where you would be performing experiments using real lab equipment. We used Lab Sims as the virtual lab platform in this class. I want to know about your experience doing virtual experiments in Lab Sims.

i. Can you please tell me about how virtual labs have been for you in this class? What has been good about it? What has been not so good about it?

ii. How did you find the experiments you did on Lab Sims? Easy? Difficult? Why?

iii. Did the experiments give you a good idea of how could do the same experiments in real life?

iv. What was your favourite experiment so far? What was your least favourite? Why?

v. If you had to do the same experiments in a real laboratory, how do you think it would be? Similar or different? Why?

vi. Do you think this course would have been better if it were in person in a real lab space? Why or why not?

C. Have you ever taken a lab-based course before this class?

i. Before you started this course, what did you expect out of a virtual lab course?

ii. Are in-person lab classes better than virtual labs for you? What are the advantages of each? What are the challenges of each?

iii. Would you rather take a hands-on lab course or a virtual lab course as this one again? Why?

D. In this class, we meet on ZOOM, and you meet in person with your TA.

i. What are some benefits to you about meeting live on ZOOM?

ii. What are some benefits to you about meeting in-person on campus?

iii. Which one do you prefer? Why?

iv. What has been your experience been working with other students in this class?

v. Do you think you participate more in-person or on ZOOM? Why?

V. Comprehending lab procedures: i want you to take a look at this lab protocol from Lab Sims on Acid-Base Titration lab. (Share on ZOOM screen and file share) Please take a few minutes to read steps 1 to 9 under Experiment 1.

A. After reading these steps, do you feel like you have a good idea of what you need to do in this experiment? Explain how you would set it up.

B. Which parts were unclear? How would you change these steps to make it easier?

C. Do you need to look up any info to understand the procedures? If so, what would you need to look up?

D. In the beginning of lab, the instructor typically provides a demo on how to setup the experiment. How useful is the demo for you?

VI. Language barrier: as you know, this course is taught by Penn State, so the official language is English in this class. Because your first language is not English, there could be some challenges with translating some words and expressing thoughts in English.

A. What were some challenges you faced in this class because of the language being English?

B. What did you do to overcome these challenges?

C. Were there any tools or someone else you asked for help to support your learning?

VI. Let me take this chance to thank you for meeting with me. I appreciate your time and feedback.

A. Member checking: just to make sure I have everything correct – let me review your responses to these questions. Please let me know if you would like to add or change your responses.

B. Is there anything else you would like to share regarding your experience in this class? Do you have any questions for me?

References

1. Abedi J., Courtney M., Mirocha J., Leon S. and Goldberg J., (2005), Language Accommodations for English Language Learners in Large-Scale Assessments: Bilingual Dictionaries and Linguistic Modification. CSE Report 666, National Centre for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
2. Addy T. M., Mitchell K. A. and Dube D., (2021), A Tool to Advance Inclusive Teaching Efforts: The “Who's in Class?” Form, J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ., 22(3), e00183–e00121.
3. Al-Khresheh M. H., (2015), A review study of interlanguage theory, Int. J. Appl. Linguistics English Literature, 4(3), 123–131.
4. Ali N. and Ullah S., (2020), Review to analyze and compare virtual chemistry laboratories for their use in education, J. Chem. Educ., 97(10), 3563–3574.
5. Astin A. W. and Astin H. S., (1992), Undergraduate science education: the impact of different college environments on the educational pipeline in the sciences, Final report.
6. Ardasheva Y., Norton-Meier L. and Hand B., (2015), Negotiation, embeddedness, and non-threatening learning environments as themes of science and language convergence for English language learners, Stud. Sci. Educ., 51(2), 201–249.
7. Bailenson J. N., (2021), Nonverbal overload: a theoretical argument for the causes of Zoom fatigue, Technol., Mind, Behavior, 2(1) DOI:10.1037/tmb0000030.
8. Baker L. A. and Cavinato A. G., (2020), Teaching analytical chemistry in the time of COVID-19, Anal. Chem., 92(15), 10185–10186.
9. Basnight-Brown D. M. and Altarriba J., (2007), Differences in semantic and translation priming across languages: the role of language direction and language dominance, Memory Cognition, 35(5), 953–965.
10. Bergey R., Movit M., Baird A. S. and Faria A. M., (2018), Serving English Language Learners in Higher Education: Unlocking the Potential, American Institutes for Research.
11. Boothe D., (2020), Transforming the ICT learning environment for English language learners, J. Higher Educ. Theory Practice, 20(3), 22–25.
12. Bowen C. W., (1999), Development and score validation of a chemistry laboratory anxiety instrument (CLAI) for college chemistry students, Educ. Psychol. Measurement, 59(1), 171–185.
13. Bruna K. R., Vann R. and Escudero M. P., (2007), What's language got to do with it? a case study of academic language instruction in a high school “English Learner Science” class, J. English Academic Purposes, 6, 36–54.
14. Calafato R., (2019), The non-native speaker teacher as proficient multilingual: a critical review of research from 2009–2018, Lingua, 227, 102700.
15. Carlo M. S., August D., McLaughlin B., Snow C. E., Dressler C., Lippman D. N., Lively T. J. and White C. E., (2004), Closing the gap: addressing the vocabulary needs of English-language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms, Read. Res. Q., 39(2), 188–215.
16. Carlsson B., (2002), Ecological understanding 1: ways of experiencing photosynthesis, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 24, 681–699.
17. Carter C. S. and Brickhouse N. W., (1989), What makes chemistry difficult? Alternate perceptions, J. Chem. Educ., 66(3), 223.
18. Chan P., Van Gerven T., Dubois J. L. and Bernaerts K., (2021), Virtual chemical laboratories: a systematic literature review of research, technologies and instructional design, Comput. Educ. Open, 2, 100053.
19. Chen J. C. and Kent S., (2020), Task engagement, learner motivation and avatar identities of struggling English language learners in the 3D virtual world, System, 88, 102–168.
20. Collier V. P., (1995), Acquiring a second language for school, Directions Language Educ., 1(4), n4.
21. Collier S., Burston B. and Rhodes A., 2016. Teaching STEM as a second language: utilizing SLA to develop equitable learning for all students, J. Multicultural Educ., 10(3), 257–273.
22. Creswell J. W., (1994), Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches, Sage Publications, Inc.
23. Cummins J., (1984), Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, Vol. 6.
24. Dall’Alba G., Walsh E., Bowden J., Martin E., Masters G., Ramsden P. and Stehpanou A., (1993), Textbook treatments and students’ understanding of acceleration, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 30, 621–635.
25. de Araujo Z., Roberts S. A., Willey C. and Zahner W., (2018), English learners in K–12 mathematics education: a review of the literature, Rev. Educ. Res., 88(6), 879–919.
26. Dewsbury B. and Brame C. J., (2019), Inclusive teaching, CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 18(2), fe2.
27. Eddy R. M., (2000), Chemophobia in the college classroom: extent, sources, and student characteristics, J. Chem. Educ., 77(4), 514.
28. Ellis R. A., (2004), University student approaches to learning science through writing, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 26, 1835–1853.
29. Floris F. D. and Renandya W. A., (2020), Promoting the Value of Non-Native English-Speaking Teachers, PASAA, 59, 1–19.
30. Freeman B., (2011), Using digital technologies to redress inequities for English language learners in the English speaking mathematics classroom, Comput. Educ.: Int. J., 59, 50–62.
31. Freeman Jr S. and Kochan F., (2012), The Role of Assessment and Accountability in Higher Education Doctoral Programs: A Presidential Perspective, Int. J. Educ. Leadership Preparation, 7(2), n2.
32. Galloway N., Numajiri T. and Rees N., (2020), The ‘internationalisation’, or ‘Englishisation’, of higher education in East Asia, Higher Educ., 80(3), 395–414.
33. Gamse B. C., Martinez A. and Bozzi L., (2017), Calling STEM experts: how can experts contribute to students’ increased STEM engagement? Int. J. Sci. Educ., Part B, 7(1), 31–59.
34. Garrison D. R., Anderson T. and Archer W., (2010), The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: a retrospective, Int. Higher Educ., 13(1–2), 5–9.
35. Gemmel P. M., Goetz M. K., James N. M., Jesse K. A. and Ratliff B. J., (2020), Collaborative learning in chemistry: impact of COVID-19, J. Chem. Educ., 97(9), 2899–2904.
36. Gradel K. and Edson A. J., (2009), Putting universal design for learning on the higher ed agenda, J. Educ. Technol. Syst., 38(2), 111–121.
37. Grapin S. E., Llosa L., Haas A., Goggins M. and Lee O., (2019), Precision: toward a meaning-centered view of language use with English learners in the content areas, Linguist. Educ., 50, 71–83.
38. Haas A., Januszyk R., Grapin S. E., Goggins M., Llosa L. and Lee O., (2021), Developing instructional materials aligned to the next generation science standards for all students, including English learners, J. Sci. Teacher Educ., 32(7), 735–756.
39. Hafner C. A., (2019), Digital literacies for English language learners, Second Handbook English Language Teaching, 899–918.
40. Harrison J. and Shi H., (2016), English language learners in higher education: an exploratory conversation, J. Int. Students, 6(2), 415–430.
41. Hjalmarson M. A. and Parsons A. W., (2021), Conjectures, cycles and contexts: a systematic review of design-based research in engineering education, Studies Eng. Educ., 1(2), 142.
42. Humphreys M. S. and Revelle W., (1984), Personality, motivation, and performance: a theory of the relationship between individual differences and information processing, Psychol. Rev., 91(2), 153.
43. Hussar B., Zhang J., Hein S., Wang K., Roberts A., Cui J., Smith M., Mann F. B., Barmer A. and Dilig R., (2020), The Condition of Education 2020. NCES 2020-144, National Center Educ. Statistics.
44. Ingerman A. and Booth S., (2003), Expounding on physics: a phenomenographic study of physicists talks of their physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 20, 1489–1508.
45. Jackson J. K. and Ash G., (2012), Science achievement for all: improving science performance and closing achievement gaps, J. Sci. Teacher Educ., 23(7), 723–744.
46. LaCosse J., Canning E. A., Bowman N. A., Murphy M. C. and Logel C., (2020), A social-belonging intervention improves STEM outcomes for students who speak English as a second language, Sci. Adv., 6(40), eabb6543.
47. Lee O. and Buxton C. A., (2013), Teacher professional development to improve science and literacy achievement of English language learners, Theory Into Practice, 52(2), 110–117.
48. Lee E. N. and Orgill M., (2021), Toward Equitable Assessment of English Language Learners in General Chemistry: Identifying Supportive Features in Assessment Items, J. Chem. Educ., 99(1), 35–48.
49. Lee O. and Stephens A., (2020), English learners in STEM subjects: contemporary views on STEM subjects and language with English learners, Educ. Res., 49(6), 426–432.
50. Lee M. J., Spryszynski A. and Nersesian E., (2019a), Personalizing VR Educational Tools for English Language Learners, IUI Workshops, 19.
51. Lee O., Llosa L., Grapin S., Haas A. and Goggins M., (2019b), Science and language integration with English learners: a conceptual framework guiding instructional materials development, Sci. Educ., 103(2), 317–337.
52. Lee E. N., Orgill M. and Kardash C., (2020), Supporting English Language Learners in College Science Classrooms: Insights from Chemistry Students, Multicultural Educ., 27, 25–32.
53. Loonat M. S., (1996), Improving the teaching of practical chemistry at a distance teaching institution, Different Approaches: Theory Practice Higher Educ, 76, 548.
54. Lybeck L., Marton F., Stromdahl H. and Tullberg A., (1988), The phenomenography of the ‘mole concept’ in chemistry, in Ramsden P. (ed.) Improving learning: New perspectives, New York, NY: Nichols Publishing Company, pp. 81–108.
55. Marton F., (1981), Phenomenography – Describing conceptions of the world around us, Instructional Sci., 10, 177–200.
56. Marton F., (1994), Phenomenography, Int. Encyclopedia Educ., 8(2), 4424–4429.
57. Marton F. and Booth S., (1997), Learning and Awareness, Mayway, New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum.
58. Mercier V. B., Scholten U., Baltensperger R., Gremaud L. and Dabros M., (2021), Distance Teaching in Chemistry: Opportunities and Limitations, CHIMIA Int. J. Chem., 75(1–2), 58–63.
59. Muñoz Luna R., (2010), Interlanguage in undergraduates’ academic English: preliminary results from written script analysis.
60. Naiditch F. and Selinker L., (2017), Using the discourse domain hypothesis of interlanguage to teach scientific concepts: report on a case study in secondary education, Int. Rev. Appl. Linguistics Language Teaching, 55(4), 413–454.
61. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, (2018), English learners in STEM subjects: Transforming classrooms, schools, and lives, National Academies Press.
62. National Center for Education Statistics, (2019), English language learners in public schools, Condition Educ., Retrieved [2021], from https://nces.edu.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgf.
63. Njoki P. N., (2020), Remote teaching of general chemistry for nonscience majors during COVID-19, J. Chem. Educ., 97(9), 3158–3162.
64. Nurieva R. G. and Garaeva M. L., (2020), Zoom-based distance learning of English as a foreign language, J. Res. Appl. Linguistics, 11(Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Applied Linguistics Issues (ALI 2020), Saint Petersburg, 13–14 June 2020), 439–448.
65. Olander C., (2010), Towards an interlanguage of biological evolution: Exploring students talk and writing as an arena for sense-making.
66. Oliveira A. W., Weinburgh M., McBride E., Bobowski T. and Shea R., (2019), Teaching science to English language learners: current research and practices in the field of science education, Handbook TESOL K-12, 277–290.
67. Oropeza M. V., Varghese M. M. and Kanno Y., (2010), Linguistic minority students in higher education: using, resisting, and negotiating multiple labels, Equity Excellence Educ., 43(2), 216–231.
68. Pyburn D. T., Pazicni S., Benassi V. A. and Tappin E. E., (2013), Assessing the relation between language comprehension and performance in general chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Practice, 14(4), 524–541.
69. Ramachandran R. and Rodriguez M. C., (2020), Student perspectives on remote learning in a large organic chemistry lecture course, J. Chem. Educ., 97(9), 2565–2572.
70. Rao K., (2015), Universal design for learning and multimedia technology: supporting culturally and linguistically diverse students, J. Educ. Multimedia Hypermedia, 24(2), 121–137.
71. Rao K. and Tanners A., (2011), Curb cuts in cyberspace: universal instructional design for online courses, J. Postsecondary Educ. Disability, 24(3), 211–229.
72. Rao K. and Torres C., (2016), Supporting academic and affective learning processes for English language learners with universal design for learning, TESOL Quarterly, 51(2), 460–472.
73. Rees S., Kind V. and Newton D., (2019), Meeting the challenge of chemical language barriers in university level chemistry education, Israel J. Chem., 59(6–7), 470–477.
74. Rees S., Kind V. and Newton D., (2021), The development of chemical language usage by “non-traditional” students: the interlanguage analogy, Res. Sci. Educ., 51(2), 419–438.
75. Saldana J., (2021), The coding manual for qualitative researchers, SAGE.
76. Sanders M., (2009), STEM, Stem education STEMmania, Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.
77. Shao K., Pekrun R. and Nicholson L., (2019), Emotions in classroom language learning: what has been done and what can be learned, System, 86(C), 102121.
78. Shaw J., Lyon E. G., Stoddart T., Mosqueda E. and Menon P., (2014), Improving science and literacy learning for English language learners: evidence from a pre-service teacher preparation intervention, J. Sci. Teacher Educ., 25(5), 621–643.
79. Singh G., (2016), Challenges for Teachers in the Era of E-learning in India, Scholedge Int. J. Multidisciplinary Allied Studies, 3(2), 14–18.
80. Smith-Keiling B. L. and Hyun H. I. F., (2019), Applying a computer-assisted tool for semantic analysis of writing: uses for STEM and ELL. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ., 20(1), 70.
81. Snow C. E., (2010), Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science, Science, 328(5977), 450–452.
82. Suh E. K., Hoffman L. and Zollman A., (2020), Making STEM Accessible to All, Handbook of Research on STEM Education.
83. Taber, K., (2018), Lost and found in translation: guidelines for reporting research data in an ‘other’ language, Chem. Educ. Res. Practice, 19, 646.
84. Toohey K., Smythe S., Dagenais D. and Forte M., (2020), Transforming language and literacy education: new materialism, posthumanism, and onto ethics, Routledge.
85. Trigwell K., (2000), Phenomenography: variation and discernment, in C. Rust (ed.) Improving student learning, Proceedings of the 1999 7^thInternational Symposium, Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford, UK: Oxford, pp. 75–85.
86. Viera J. and Kosheleva O. M., (2017), Studying English Language Learners' Digital Practices in an Online Environment to Create Equal Learning Opportunities, AERA Online Paper Repository.
87. Vladušić R., Bucat R. and Ožić M., (2016), Understanding of words and symbols by chemistry university students in Croatia, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 17(3), 474–488.
88. Vogel S. and García O., (2017), Trans-languaging, Oxford Research Encyclopaedia of Education, USA: Oxford University Press.
89. Wan G., (2001), The learning experience of Chinese students in American universities: a cross-cultural perspective, College Student J., 35(1), 28.
90. Wang L. Q. and Ren J., (2020), Strategies, practice and lessons learned from remote teaching of the general chemistry laboratory course at Brown University, J. Chem. Educ., 97(9), 3002–3006.
91. Walsh E., Dall’Alba G., Bowden J., Martin E., Masters G., Ramsden P. and Stephanou A., (1993), Physics students’ understanding of relative speed: a phenomenographic study, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 30, 1133–1148.
92. Wiederhold B. K., (2020), Connecting through technology during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: avoiding “Zoom Fatigue”, Cyberpsychol., Behav., Soc. Netw., 23(7), 437–438.
93. Wilson K., (2020), Balancing the Disruptions to the Teaching and Learning Equilibrium—Responsive Pedagogic Approaches to Teaching Online During the Covid-19 Pandemic in General Chemistry Classes at an Arabian Gulf University, J. Chem. Educ., 97(9), 2895–2898.
94. Woldeamanuel M. M., Atagana H. and Engida T., (2014), What makes chemistry difficult? African J. Chem. Educ., 4(2), 31–43.
95. Woodfield B. F., Andrus M. B., Andersen T., Miller J., Simmons B., Stanger R., Waddoups G. L., Moore M. S., Swan R., Allen R. and Bodily G., (2005), The virtual ChemLab project: a realistic and sophisticated simulation of organic synthesis and organic qualitative analysis, J. Chem. Educ., 82(11), 1728.
96. Zwiep S. G., Straits W. J., Stone K., Beltran D. and Furtado L., (2011), The integration of English language development and science instruction in elementary classrooms, J. Sci. Teacher Education, 22(8), 1315–1331.

---