This study explores the impact of grammar-based sentence construction activities on students’ written production in higher chemistry education. The research is grounded in the idea that subject learning and language development can and should be integrated in non-language classrooms through structured pedagogical support. In the proposed approach, students regularly construct chemistry-related sentences using specially designed grammar cards that prompt the use of specific linguistic structures, such as passive voice, comparative forms, conditional clauses, and linking phrases, while maintaining scientific accuracy.

The central research question of the study is: How does the systematic use of grammar-guided sentence construction during chemistry lessons influence students’ written performance in terms of grammatical accuracy, syntactic complexity, and clarity of subject-specific meaning? The primary objective is to examine whether targeted grammatical scaffolding embedded in subject teaching can enhance students’ academic writing without reducing cognitive engagement with disciplinary content.

The study is theoretically informed by Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), sociocultural theory, and functional approaches to grammar. From a CLIL perspective, chemistry serves as a meaningful context for language use, supporting the simultaneous development of content knowledge and academic literacy. Sociocultural theory frames the grammar cards as mediational tools that scaffold learners’ writing within their zone of proximal development. Functional and genre-based views of grammar underpin the focus on language as a resource for meaning-making in scientific discourse, particularly for explaining processes, expressing cause–and–effect relationships, and structuring arguments.

The research adopts an international perspective by addressing widely recognised educational priorities, including interdisciplinary teaching, the development of academic writing across the curriculum, and transparent assessment of both content and language.

Literature Review

The integration of language development within subject teaching has been widely discussed in contemporary educational research, particularly within the framework of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and language-aware teaching. Numerous studies emphasize that subject learning and language learning are inseparable processes, as academic understanding is constructed and demonstrated through language, especially in written form (Coyle, Hood & Marsh, 2010).

Research on language across the curriculum highlights that students often experience difficulties not because of conceptual misunderstandings, but due to insufficient control of academic language structures required for explaining, comparing, and justifying ideas in subject-specific contexts (Schleppegrell, 2004). In science education, including chemistry, writing tasks frequently demand complex grammatical constructions such as passive voice, conditionals, and comparative structures, which are not always explicitly taught in subject lessons. As a result, students’ written performance may underestimate their conceptual understanding (Halliday & Martin, 1993).

Several studies demonstrate that explicit focus on grammatical form within meaningful subject contexts can positively affect learners’ written accuracy and complexity. According to Ellis (2006), form-focused instruction is most effective when grammatical structures are embedded in communicative and cognitively demanding tasks rather than isolated drills. Similarly, research by Gibbons (2009) shows that scaffolding academic language through structured supports enables learners to gradually appropriate discipline-specific discourse.

The use of scaffolding tools, such as sentence frames, writing prompts, and grammar cards, has been shown to support learners in producing more coherent and linguistically complex written texts. These tools reduce cognitive load and allow students to concentrate on meaning-making while gradually increasing linguistic sophistication (Swain, 2005). In CLIL and bilingual education contexts, structured language support has been linked to improved use of target grammatical structures in subject writing without negatively affecting content learning (Dalton-Puffer, 2011).

Assessment literature further supports the alignment of instruction and evaluation through criterion-based and formative approaches. Black and Wiliam (2009) argue that transparent criteria and regular feedback enable learners to understand expectations and monitor their own progress. 

The study employed a qualitative–quantitative classroom-based research design aimed at examining changes in students’ written performance before and after the implementation of grammar-guided sentence construction activities in chemistry lessons. The research was conducted in a natural educational setting and focused on students’ authentic written work produced as part of regular subject assessment. The primary data sources consisted of students’ written assignments collected at two stages: before the intervention and after its completion. Pre-intervention data included unit-based and term-based written tasks completed before the introduction of grammar cards. Post-intervention data comprised comparable written assignments produced after students had systematically engaged with the grammar-supported sentence construction activities during chemistry lessons. Students’ written work was analysed using a criterion-referenced assessment rubric specifically designed for the study. The rubric focused on the grammatical structures targeted in the grammar cards, including the use of passive voice, comparative forms, conditional clauses (if-clauses), and linking phrases, while also considering overall grammatical accuracy and correctness of chemistry-related meaning. This ensured that improvements in language use were evaluated in close connection with subject understanding. A comparative analysis was carried out between pre- and post-intervention writing samples to identify changes in the frequency, accuracy, and complexity of the targeted grammatical structures. Individual student progress was tracked by comparing performance across assessment points, allowing for the identification of patterns of development and areas of improvement. Particular attention was paid to students’ ability to transfer grammatical structures practiced through the cards into independent written production. The grammar cards themselves functioned both as an instructional tool and as a research instrument, providing a consistent framework for scaffolding language use and for monitoring progress. The combination of authentic assessment data, criterion-based analysis, and longitudinal comparison allowed for a nuanced evaluation of the impact of grammar-guided sentence construction on students’ academic writing in a non-language subject context.

The analysis of students’ written work before and after the intervention reveals a clear positive trend in learning outcomes. A comparison of summative assessment results at the unit and quarterly levels reveals a noticeable increase in students’ performance, as expressed in percentage scores. Before the intervention, students’ results ranged approximately from 40%–75%, whereas after the implementation of grammar-focused cards, the scores increased to a range of 58%–90%. In many cases, individual progress resulted in an improvement of 10–20 percentage points, indicating not only short-term gains but also more stable achievements over time. In addition to summative data, formative assessment conducted during lessons confirmed qualitative improvements in students’ writing. Analysis of tasks completed using the grammar cards showed that learners became more accurate and confident in constructing sentences. The percentage growth correlates with a reduction in grammatical errors and a more consistent use of targeted structures, including the passive voice, conditional sentences, comparative forms, and linking devices explicitly required by the assessment card. Intermediate classroom tasks further demonstrated that repeated and structured practice led to increased sentence complexity and clearer expression of subject-specific ideas. Students increasingly combined correct grammatical forms with appropriate chemistry content, which suggests improved control of academic language. Overall, the findings suggest that integrating grammar-focused scaffolding into chemistry lessons has a positive impact on students’ written performance. The observed progress confirms that targeted grammatical support, aligned with assessment criteria, can enhance both accuracy and clarity of written work without detracting from subject understanding. These results support the effectiveness of form-focused instruction embedded in content learning and highlight its potential for broader application in subject classrooms.

1.Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. 2.Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. 3.Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (2nd ed., pp. 487–499). Springer. 4.Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204. 5.Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83–107. 6.Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach English. Longman. 7.Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. University of Michigan Press. 8.Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. John Benjamins. 9.Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press. 10.Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. 11.Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Lawrence Erlbaum. 12.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. 13.Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree Press. 14.Zhang, L. J. (2013). Second language writing as an integrated skill. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(1), 1–7.