Bilingual Edu in Different Contexts Principles and Practice

2 Bilingual Education in Different
Contexts: Principles and Practice
This chapter presents an overview of the theoretical and empirical literature

of bilingual education which is relevant to an understanding of how a second
or foreign language (L2) can be used as a medium of instruction in schools
for the dual goal of achieving bilingualism/biliteracy and cognitive/academic
learning. Major theories, principles, concepts and programme options/models
in bilingual education are delineated. The factors and conditions promoting
or inhibiting success in bilingual education are critically reviewed. Their
implications for Hong Kong and other Southeast Asian contexts are discussed.
Copyright © 2009. Hong Kong University Press. All rights reserved.
Bilingual Education: Sociohistorical Contexts, Aims and Types

Bilingual education is a simple label for a complex phenomenon (Cazden & Snow, 1990).
It relates to a society’s “debates about the fundamental purposes and aims of education
in general: for individuals, communities, regions and nations” and must be considered as
situated in complex sociohistorical, economic, cultural and political contexts (Baker, 2001,
pp. 183–4). To understand the great variety of bilingual education programmes in the world,
one useful perspective is to consider the different sociohistorical contexts that have given
rise to the different aims of bilingual education and its diverse programme types.
Diversity of Aims and Contexts

Baker (2001, p. 193) cited Ferguson, Houghton and Wells’s (1977) examples of the
diverse aims of bilingual education as follows:
Lin, Angela M.Y., and Evelyn Y.F. Man. Bilingual Education : Southeast Asian Perspectives, Hong Kong University Press,
2009. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/monash/detail.action?docID=677305.
Created from monash on 2018-09-01 21:42:19.
12 Bilingual Education: Southeast Asian Perspectives
1. To assimilate individuals or groups into the mainstream society; to socialize people

for full participation in the community;
2. To unify a multilingual society; to bring unity to a multi-ethnic, multi-tribal, or
multinational linguistically diverse state;
3. To enable people to communicate with the outside world;
4. To provide language skills which are marketable, aiding employment and status;
5. To preserve ethnic and religious identity;
6. To reconcile and mediate between different linguistic and political communities;
7. To spread the use of a colonizing language, socializing an entire population to a
colonial existence;
8. To strengthen elite groups and preserve their position in society;
9. To give equal status in law to languages of unequal status in daily life; and
10. To deepen understanding of language and culture.
Different aims seem to be important in different societal/political contexts. For instance,

aim (1) is important in the United States under the American “melting-pot” ideology to
assimilate non-English-speaking linguistic minorities/immigrants into the mainstream
unilingual English-speaking society, whereas aims (2) and (6) are far more important
in multi-ethnic societies like Singapore and Malaysia, for the political importance of
promoting national unity, social cohesion and inter-ethnic harmony. In pre-1997 Hong
Kong, aims (7) and (8) might be relevant. However, in post-1997 Hong Kong, it seems
that aims (3) and (4) should have become the more important goals. Also apparently
important in the post-1997 context is the not-often-mentioned sociocultural goal to
foster in the younger generation a sense of roots and pride in the Chinese language
and culture as well as a sense of belonging to the mother country of China, while at the
same time developing in them an international outlook and adequate English skills to
participate and compete in the global economy as well as scientic and technological
endeavours.
The above diverse list of aims also shows that bilingual education can be used by
language education planners as a means to a range of ends, which often goes beyond
merely linguistic and educational considerations. As Baker (2001, p. 193) pointed out:
... bilingual education does not necessarily concern the balanced use and development of
two languages in the classroom. Behind bilingual education are varying and conicting
philosophies of what education is for. Sociocultural, political and economic issues are
ever present in the debate over the provision of bilingual education. (Emphasis added)
It seems that, in designing language education policies in Hong Kong, the important
rst step is to explicate and prioritize the range of goals that are widely considered to be
important in and for Hong Kong. Policymakers, however, can anticipate animated public
debates and discussions on what constitute the most important goals and what appear
to be the optimal programmes in language education. It seems that, to achieve greater
success in implementing language education policies, these policies need to be rst
legitimized or supported by some public consensus. In the process of policy legitimation
Bilingual Education in Different Contexts: Principles and Practice 13
or public consensus-building, it is important to make accessible to the public research and

scientic information regarding different aspects of bilingual education. For instance, it
is important:
1. To inform the public of the different, often conicting goals and priorities in language
education;
2. To inform the public of the necessary conditions for success (often requiring certain
school, family and community resources), as well as the costs and benets of
different programme options that are available and feasible to achieve the goals,
under current government resource constraints and
3. To generate and promote informed public discussion on how to prioritize the different
goals and select from different feasible programme options to achieve the goals with
a view to resource implications.
Three Main Types of Programme: Maintenance, Transitional and

Enrichment
Another way of classifying bilingual education programmes would be to consider the
following set of variables proposed by Baker (1996):
1. Typical language(s) used by the child in daily life
2. Typical language(s) used in the classroom
3. The educational/societal aim(s) of the programme
4. The probable outcomes of the programme
Based on the above variables, ten types of bilingual education programmes can be
distinguished (summarized from Baker, 2001, pp. 193–201):
1. Submersion education/the “sink or swim” method, e.g., in the US
2. Submersion with withdrawal/pull-out/sheltered English classes, e.g., in the US
3. Segregationist education, e.g., in South Africa before Nelson Mandela was elected
president.
4. Transitional bilingual education (early exit or late exit) employing bilingual teachers
(as a result of advocacy by minorities), e.g., in the US
5. Mainstream education (with a foreign language taught as a subject), e.g., “core
French” and “drip-feed” French programmes in Canada.
6. Separatist education, e.g., small isolationist religious schools.
7. Immersion bilingual education, e.g., early total, early partial, delayed immersion,
late immersion programmes in Canada.
8. Maintenance and heritage language bilingual education, e.g., Navajo and Spanish in
the US, Ukrainian in Canada, Maori in New Zealand.
9. Two Way/Dual Language Immersion, e.g., in certain elementary schools in the
US
10. Bilingual education in majority languages, e.g., certain schools in Luxembourg, the
European Schools Movement.
These ten types of bilingual education programme are summarized and contrasted in Table
1 (from Baker, 2001, p. 194). To facilitate discussion, these diverse types of bilingual
education programmes can be classied into the following three broad categories based
on their educational/societal aims:
Table 1. A Summary of Different Types of Bilingual Education Programmes

(from Baker, 2001, p. 194)
Weak Forms of Education for Bilingualism
Type of Typical Type Language of Societal and Aim in Language
Program of Child the Classroom Educational Aim Outcome
Submersion Language Majority Assimilation Monolingualism
(Structured Minority Language
Immersion)
Submersion with Language Majority Assimilation Monolingualism
Withdrawal Minority Language with
Classes/Sheltered “Pull-out” L2
English Lessons
Segregationist Language Minority Apartheid Monolingualism
Minority Language
(forced, no
choice)
Transitional Language Moves from Assimilation Relative
Minority Minority to Monolingualism
Majority
Language
Mainstream Language Majority Limited Limited
with Foreign Majority Language with Enrichment Bilingualism
Language L2/FL Lessons
Teaching
Separatist Language Minority Detachment/ Limited
Minority Language Autonomy Bilingualism

(out of choice)
Strong Forms of Education for Bilingualism and Biliteracy
Type of Typical Type Language of Societal and Aim in Language
Program of Child the Classroom Educational Aim Outcome
Immersion Language Bilingual with Pluralism and Bilingualism &
Majority Initial Emphasis Enrichment Biliteracy
on L2
Maintenance/ Language Bilingual with Maintenance, Bilingualism &
Heritage Minority Emphasis on L1 Pluralism and Biliteracy
Language Enrichment
Two-Way/Dual Mixed Language Minority and Maintenance, Bilingualism &
Language Minority & Majority Pluralism and Biliteracy
Majority Enrichment
Mainstream Language Two Majority Maintenance, Bilingualism &
Bilingual Majority Languages Pluralism and Biliteracy
Enrichment
Note: (1) L1 = rst language; L2 = second language; FL = foreign language.
(2) Formulation of this table owes much to discussions with Professor Ofelia Garcia. This
typology is extended to 14 types of bilingual education in Garcia (1997, p. 410).
1. Maintenance programmes
2. Transitional programmes
3. Enrichment programmes
These three types of programme were rst differentiated by Fishman (1976). For Fishman,
Maintenance bilingual education programmes aim at maintaining linguistic minority/
immigrant students’ rst language while providing them with access to the dominant
language (L2) of the society through using the students’ rst language (L1) as a medium
of instruction in the early years of schooling or, in Two Way/Dual Language programmes,
through using both the students’ L1 and L2 as mediums of instruction for different subjects
or on alternate days. Transitional programmes, in contrast, aim at helping linguistic
minority/immigrant students to go through a more or less gradual transition from using
some of their L1 to using only the mainstream language as the medium of instruction. The
aim of transitional programmes is the assimilation of linguistic minorities/immigrants
into the monolingual mainstream society.
While both maintenance and transitional programmes have arisen from the needs of
the linguistic minority/immigrant students, enrichment programmes (also called “additive
bilingual” programmes), in contrast, have been designed for the majority language
students. Typically, the parents of these majority language students want their children to
master a high level of prociency in a socio-economically important L2 in addition to,
not in replacement of, the dominant societal daily life language (L1). This is done through
using the L2 as a medium of instruction in all or some of the subjects (e.g., total or partial
French immersion programmes for English-speaking students in Canada). Different
variants of the enrichment programme model are likely to be relevant to the situation
of Hong Kong, where bilingual education aims at enabling the majority Cantonese-
speaking group to acquire English as an additional language without weakening their
rst language.1 As the enrichment model is realized as different variants of immersion
education, the rest of this chapter is devoted to a critical review of the following three
successful programme models in immersion education: (1) Canadian French Immersion,
(2) European Schools, and (3) Two Way/Dual Language Immersion. The following
review draws on major references in bilingual and multilingual education which include:
Cummins, 1995, 2000; Baker and Jones, 1998 ; Johnson and Swain, 1997; Tung, 1992,
1. It has to be pointed out that the rst language or mother tongue of the majority of students
in Hong Kong is in fact Cantonese, not Standard Modern Chinese or Putonghua (the spoken
form of Standard Modern Chinese) (Tung, 1992). The daily life language of most Hong Kong
students is a colloquial variety of spoken Cantonese and Cantonese-style written Chinese
which is quite different from Standard Modern Chinese (e.g., Cantonese-style Chinese is used
in comics, popular youth magazines, colloquialized newspapers). Standard Modern Chinese
literacy is, therefore, not strongly supported in the daily life of the students in the larger
societal context. The educational implications of this complex sociolinguistic phenomenon in
Hong Kong are discussed in this chapter.
1996; Cummins and Corson, 1997; Baker, 2001; Day and Shapson, 1996; Beardsmore,
1993, 1995; Bernhardt, 1992; Harley, Allen, Cummins and Swain, 1990; Genesee, 1987;
Swain and Lapkin, 1982; Freeman, 1998; Baker and Hornberger, 2001; Lindholm-Leary,
2001.
Canadian French Immersion

As prototypes of immersion education, the Canadian French immersion programmes
have often been cited as successful examples of using a second or foreign language as a
medium of instruction for achieving high levels of prociency in the L2 without sacricing
the L1 and academic learning. It is, therefore, important to consider the origins, design
features, programme outcomes and necessary conditions for the success of the Canadian
French Immersion Model, to derive possible implications for Hong Kong schools.
Origins
The rst French immersion programme was started in the mid-1960s as an innovative
educational experiment, when a group of vocal, middle-class English-speaking Canadian
parents in St. Lambert, Quebec, lobbied their school board for improvements to the teaching
of French as a second language. These parents had read accounts of different forms of
bilingual education that might serve as superior alternatives to the traditional French-as-
a-subject programme (“Core French”) which focused on grammar, memorization, and
drill and had not provided their children with sufcient skills to work in French, or to
socialize with French speakers. Collaborating with scholars in bilingualism at McGill
University, the St. Lambert parents proposed to their school board a radical departure from
any existing FSL (French as a second language) programme in Canada: a programme in
which their unilingual English-speaking children were taught entirely in French from
Kindergarten or Primary 1, with English language arts formally introduced in Primary 2
or 3 and about half the time devoted to each language from Primary 4 through 6. By the
late 1960s, the rest of Canada was becoming aware of the socio-economic and political
value of achieving a high level of prociency in French, and various French immersion
programmes modelled on or adapted from the original St. Lambert programme have
spread to other provinces. By the 1990s, French immersion programmes were offered
optionally by some school boards. In several school boards, enrollment may be as high as
50%, the rest of the students going to rst language medium schools. Across the country,
however, “only approximately 7% of the entire student population attends an immersion
programme” (Johnson & Swain, 1997, p. 2).
Design Features
The following sections aim at presenting an overview of the design and structure of
Canadian French Immersion Programmes.
■ Goals of Canadian French Immersion Programmes

The goals of Canadian French Immersion are typical of those of the enrichment model of
bilingual education. As summarized in Baker (2001, p. 204), the stated aims of Canadian
French Immersion are for students who are English-speaking Canadians:
1. to become competent to speak, read and write in French;
2. to reach normal achievement levels throughout the curriculum including the English
language; and
3. to appreciate the traditions and culture of French-speaking Canadians as well as
English-speaking Canadians.
It can be seen from these goals that additive bilingualism is the ultimate goal of Canadian
French Immersion programmes. It is expected that students in these programmes will
become bilingual and bicultural without any loss of academic achievement and rst
language competence.
■ Principal Programme Types in Canadian French Immersion

Based on different combinations of values for the two design variables of (1) extent
of immersion and (2) beginning level of immersion, four types of Canadian French
Immersion Programmes which are commonly found can be outlined as follows:
1. Early total immersion
L2 is used in all lessons right from Kindergarten or Grade 1. L2 use gradually decreases to
approximately 80% in Grades 2 to 5 and approximately 50% in Grades 6 to 8. Ultimately
in Grades 9 to 12, approximately 40% of lessons are taught in L2.
2. Early partial immersion2

Early partial immersion is characterized by approximately 50% of L2 use from
Kindergarten through Grade 8. L2 use decreases to approximately 35% in Grades 9 and

10, and ultimately to approximately 30% in Grades 11 and 12.
3. Middle (delayed) partial immersion

L2 is learnt only as a subject from Kindergarten through Grade 3. However, starting in
Grade 4, approximately 80% of lessons are taught in L2. L2 use decreases to approximately
50% in Grades 7 and 8, and to approximately 40% in Grades 9 through 12.
4. Late partial immersion

L2 is learnt only as a subject from kindergarten through Grade 6. However, starting
in Grade 7, approximately 80% of lessons are taught in L2. L2 use decreases to
approximately 50% in Grades 9 through 12.
2. The “mixed mode” design often mentioned in public discourses in Hong Kong is an example
of partial immersion programmes. Also, the European Schools Model and the Two Way/Dual
Language Model reviewed in this chapter can be seen as examples of the mixed mode design.
The early total immersion programme (closest to the original St. Lambert experimental
design) is the most popular programme, followed by late and then middle (also called
delayed) immersion. There is also a rare type of “late, late partial immersion” under
which L2 is rst introduced as a medium of instruction as late as university level, and in
one or two subjects only (e.g., at the University of Ottawa, there is an option of studying
Introductory Psychology in the students’ L2; see Burger, Wesche & Migneron, 1997).
Figure 1 compares and contrasts the relative proportions of lessons taught in L1
and L2 across different grade levels under the four major types of French immersion
100
90
80
70
60
Percentage
50
40
30
20
10
0
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Year/Grade in School
K = Kindergarten
% of English medium lessons % of French medium lessons
100
90
80
70
60
Percentage
50 Second Language
French Lessons
40
30
20
10
0
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
K = Kindergarten
Figure 1. Major Types of French Immersion Programme (from Baker, 2001, p. 206)
100
90
80
70
60
Percentage
50
40
30
20
10
0
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
K = Kindergarten
100
90
80
70
Percentage
60
50 Also Second Language
Lessons in French
40
30
20
10
0
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
K = Kindergarten
Figure 1. (Continued)
programmes in Canada described above. Table 2 outlines a description of some French

immersion programmes in Ontario to Grade 8. It can be seen from Figure 1 and Table
2 that there is considerable exibility in designing and implementing variants of French
immersion in Canada. Different school boards in different districts have made adaptations
to the generic French Immersion Model (originating from the St. Lambert experiment) to
suit the needs of their own student population. The implication for Hong Kong seems to
be that language education planners can explore different immersion models apart from
the late total immersion model traditionally practised in Hong Kong.
Table 2. French Immersion Programmes in Ontario (from Swain & Lapkin, 1982, p. 49)
Program Board of Board Grade Description Accumulated
Education Terminology Program Hours of French
Begins at End of Grade 8
Peel County Late Partial 8 Grade 6: core French 625–780
Immersion (30 minutes daily)
Grade 7: core French
(20 minutes daily)
Grade 8: 55–70% of
curriculum in French
Late Toronto Late 7 Students have 700–870
Immersion Extended varying core French
backgrounds prior to
entering programmes
and have accumulated
from 90 to 315 hours
of core French
instruction to end of
Grade 6 Grade 7:
25–30% French
Grade 8: 40% French
Ottawa Late-Entry 6 K–Grade 5: core 2,145
Immersion French (20 minutes
daily)
Grade 6: 100% French
Grade 7: 50% French
Grade 8: 50% French
Carleton Late-Entry 7 K–Grade 6: core 1,845
Immersion French (20 minutes
daily)
Grade 7: 80% French
Grade 8: 80% French
Early Elgin County Early Partial 1 Grades 1 to 8: 50% 3,330
Partial Immersion French

Immersion
Early Total Ottawa, Early K K–Grade 1: 100% 4,450–4,985
Immersion Carleton Immersion French
Grades 2 to 4: 80%
French
Grade 5: 65%-80%
French
Grades 6 to 8: 50%
French
■ Levels of L2 Prociency Achieved and Amount of Classroom Exposure to L2

Swain and Lapkin (1982), based on their extensive research experience with immersion
education, have outlined the expected L2 learning outcomes in relation to different amounts
of classroom exposure to L2 (including exposure gained in both French immersion and
French-as-a-subject) as follows (p. 14):
1,200 hours This should enable students to reach the basic level of prociency, i.e., “a
fundamental knowledge of the language, the ability to participate in simple
conversation, the ability to read simple texts, and the ability to resume the
study of French in later life”.
2,100 hours This should enable students to reach the middle level of prociency, i.e.,
they should be able to “read newspapers and books of personal interest with
occasional help from a dictionary, to understand radio and television, to
participate adequately in conversation, and to function reasonably well in a
French-speaking community after a few months’ residence”.
5,000 hours This should enable students to reach the top level of prociency, i.e., the
student can “continue his or her education using French as the language of
instruction at the college or university level, to accept employment using
French as the working language, and to participate easily in conversation”.
Table 2 shows the different amounts of L2 exposure time in hours under different
immersion programmes. From this table and the above information, one might infer
that early immersion models yield the greatest amount of L2 exposure time and should,
therefore, yield the highest level of L2 learning outcomes, compared with late immersion
models. However, Swain and Lapkin (1982) have also made some important observations
on the relationship between L2 exposure time and L2 prociency outcomes. Their views
are summarized as follows:
1. Cumulative exposure alone (e.g., spread thinly over a long time) may be less
important than intensity of exposure.
2. Other things being equal, older students tend to be more efcient second language
learners than younger students, especially in the areas of grammar, abstract concepts,
classifying and drawing generalizations. They are more able to consciously reect
on and make use of language learning strategies. Their cognitive maturity and
foundation in L1 literacy enables them to perform better in L2 literacy-related tasks

than younger learners.
3. Programmes that use class time effectively (e.g., with a variety of comprehensible
input and uninhibited, motivated practice opportunities) can achieve more in less
time; i.e., the rich, interactive quality of L2 exposure is more important than the
mere amount of L2 exposure.
Programme Outcomes of Canadian French Immersion

Cummins (1999a) has provided a succinct summary of major programme outcomes of
Canadian French immersion. The following account is taken from Cummins (1999a, pp.
4–5; emphasis added):
Consistent ndings have been obtained from French immersion programme evaluations
across Canada. In early immersion programmes, students gain uency and literacy
in French at no long-term cost to their English academic skills. Within a year of the
introduction of formal English language arts students catch up in most aspects of English
test performance. Usually students require additional time to catch up in English spelling
but by grade 5 there are normally no differences in English test performance between
immersion students and comparison groups whose instruction has been totally through
English. One potential limitation of these ndings is that standardized tests do not assess
all aspects of English academic skills; in particular, writing development is usually
excluded from such tests. However, the few studies that have examined English writing
development specically show no evidence of problems among immersion students in
this regard (Swain, 1997). There is also no evidence of any long-term lag in mastery of
subject matter taught through French in early, middle or late immersion programmes.
With respect to French skills, students’ receptive skills in French are better
developed (in relation to native speaker norms) than are their expressive skills. By the
end of elementary school (grade 6) students are close to the level of native speakers in
understanding and reading of French but there are signicant gaps between them and
native speakers in spoken and written French (Harley, Allen, Cummins & Swain, 1990).
Similar ndings are obtained for late immersion programmes. French skills
develop well in the rst two years of the programme and differences between students in
intensive forms of late immersion (100% French in grades 7 and 8) and those who have
come through an early immersion programme are relatively minor. The early immersion
programme students are generally more uent and comfortable in French but the late
immersion students show somewhat greater accuracy in their mastery of grammatical
constructions. As Swain (1997) notes in her review: “The evidence emerging from the
variety of immersion programmes with different starting ages suggests that older students
may possess cognitive characteristics which give them an advantage in learning certain
aspects of a second language” (p. 266).
As seen from Cummin’s account, the learning outcomes of different versions of Canadian
French Immersion seem to be largely positive. However, since the context of Canadian
French Immersion is likely to be very different from other societal contexts, it is important
to analyze the conditions for the success of Canadian French immersion before any
generalization of its effectiveness can be made.
Conditions for Success in Canadian French Immersion

The research literature strongly indicates that the success of Canadian immersion
programmes depends on a number of important conditions (Swain & Lapkin, 1982; Baker,
2001; Johnson & Swain, 1997; Cummins, 1999a). These conditions, further elaborated in
Part II of this volume, can be summarized as follows (Tung, 1996):
1. Parental involvement is important, for attention and material support, as well as
providing a home environment which is rich in support for L1 and L2 linguistic and
literacy development, e.g., rich print environment at home.
2. Both students and parents are members of the majority group in the society; i.e.,
the students’ L1 is not at risk but secure and prestigious in the society. The larger
sociolinguistic context also supports the use and development of the students’ L1
speech and literacy.
3. The immersion programme is optional. Students can choose to leave the programme.
Students remaining in the immersion programme are therefore likely to be those
motivated to study in the L2.
4. Both students and parents hold positive attitudes towards French and French-
Canadians.
5. High quality of teachers is necessary, which means high standards of professional
training and high prociency levels in both languages.
6. An interactive style of teaching (rather than a teacher-fronted, didactic style of
teaching) provides a variety of high-quality input (e.g., in a range of language
functions) as well as rich opportunities for students’ productive language use.
Of the above-listed conditions/factors, teacher professional preparation and instructional

approach/teaching methodology seem to be areas which are, relatively speaking, most
amenable to the teacher training/curriculum planning efforts of government and language
education planners. So, here, we devote some more space to an examination of classroom
strategies used by effective French immersion teachers and of the instructional principles
upheld in Canadian immersion education.
For instance, Swain and Lapkin (1982) have delineated the instructional principles
of early total immersion, summarized as follows:
1. Students should receive the same type of education as they would in the regular
English programme, but the medium of instruction through which content is
presented and discussed is French. This provides a naturalistic setting for second
language acquisition.
2. The teacher accepts and starts from the existing language, interests and skills of
the children. The language acquisition process is seen as “production owing from
comprehension”.
3. The teacher’s focus is on conveying the content to the students and on responding to
the content of what the students are saying, whether it is said in broken French or the
home language, English.
4. The early emphasis is on teaching relevant vocabulary in the context of conveying
real messages through the use of pictures, gestures, and other body language cues.
5. Explicit instruction in grammar is given when the children get older (e.g., Grade 3)
in separate lessons.
Snow (1990, quoted in Baker, 2001, p. 337) has also provided a list of ten specic
techniques that tend to be used by experienced and effective immersion teachers:
1. Providing plenty of contextual support for the language being used (e.g., by body
language — plenty of gestures, facial expressions and acting).
2. Deliberately giving more classroom directions and organizational advice to
immersion students. For example, signalling the start and the end of different
routines, more explicit directions with homework and assignments.
3. Understanding where a child is at, thereby connecting the unfamiliar with the
familiar, the known with the unknown. New material is linked directly and explicitly
with the child’s present knowledge and understanding.
4. Extensive use of visual material. Using concrete objects to illustrate lessons, using
pictures and audio-visual aids, giving the child plenty of hands-on manipulative
activities to ensure all senses are used in the educational experience.
5. Obtaining constant feedback regarding the level of a student’s understanding.
Diagnosing the level of a student’s language.
6. Using plenty of repetition, summaries, restatement to ensure that students understand
the directions of the teacher.
7. The teacher being a role model for language emulation by the student.
8. Indirect error correction rather than constantly faulting students. Teachers ensure that
the corrections are built into their language to make a quick and immediate impact.
9. Using plenty of variety in both general learning tasks and in language learning tasks.
10. Using frequent and varied methods to check the understanding level of the
children.
One would notice, however, that many of these instructional strategies and principles seem
to be more appropriate for early rather than late immersion learners, and for dealing with
early grade-level academic content, which tends to be less abstract and context-reduced
than higher grade-level content. Most research in Canada has also been conducted on
early immersion at the elementary level (Grades K–6) whereas, for the most part, in
Hong Kong English-medium instruction begins at the secondary level. We therefore need
to exercise caution when interpreting the Canadian research ndings in the contexts of
Hong Kong or other societies.
European Schools
Another famous successful example of immersion education is the European Schools

Model. The European Schools have, however, sometimes been charged with elitism for
their expensive and exclusive nature. Here is what Beardsmore (1993, pp. 3–4) said of
the European Schools:
The least productive model included in this collection is that of the European Schools,
given that it is not destined for expansion, is expensive to operate and could be taxed
with elitism. Nevertheless, the immense practical experience gained from this complex
form of multilingual education and the many insights it offers on how to handle mixed
populations on an equal footing should provide elements of inspiration. As a model,
it is unlikely to be adopted elsewhere. It differs signicantly from many so-called
international schools, however, in that, unlike the latter, it is genuinely multilingual
both in programme and in outcome, whereas most so-called international schools are
only international in population make-up, to some extent in curriculum, but rarely so in
languages on offer.
The European Schools Model (Beardsmore, 1993, 1995; Cummins, 1995; Tung, 1996)
is therefore outlined here mainly for the insights that Hong Kong language education
planners might gain regarding the question of how to effectively design and run a small
number of top-quality, innovative schools which can provide the society and economy
with a top-notch workforce that is fully biliterate (in English and Standard Chinese) and
fully trilingual (in Cantonese, English and Putonghua), albeit small in size. Nevertheless,
some of the principles drawn from the practical experience of the European Schools can
also be adapted for application in less elitist blingual education models. The following
sections on the features of the European Schools are based on Beardsmore (1995),
Cummins (1995) and Tung (1996).
Origins and Goals of the European Schools

The European Schools were rst established in 1958 by the education authorities of
the twelve member states of the European Economic Community for children of civil
servants working for one of the supra-national European institutions. The schools use
multilingualism as a tool to promote a European identity, but at the same time ensure
the development of the students’ rst language and cultural identity. Students are taught
through at least two languages, and are required to learn a third language as a subject.
Organization of the European Schools

Each school consists of various linguistic sub-sections so that children are enrolled
initially in the sub-section using their rst language. In the primary school, therefore, the
children are mainly educated through their rst language. A second language (English,
French or German) is taught as a subject from the very beginning. Teachers are seconded
from schools of the various countries. New teachers are assigned a mentor to help them
adjust to the special circumstances of the school. There are also seminars and retraining
sessions for teachers. Unpaid co-ordinators are elected from teachers to ensure co-
ordination of activities across grades and languages. Remedial teachers are employed to
provide additional L2 instruction for students joining the school after Grade 1.
Curriculum of the European Schools

Primary school education lasts for ve years (see Table 3). All children follow the
same programme, irrespective of the language of instruction. When L2 is used as the
medium of instruction, it is used in cognitively undemanding and contextualized subjects
such as physical education and the European Hours. The latter involves children from
different linguistic sub-sections in co-operative activities such as sewing and cooking.
The intention is to let children from different countries interact before prejudices about
people of different origins can be formed.
Table 3. Primary School Curriculum in European Schools (from Beardsmore,

1995, p. 40)
1st and 2nd grades 3rd, 4th and 5th grades
L1 as a subject 16 × 30 mins L1 as a subject 9 × 45 mins
Mathematics 8 × 30 mins Mathematics 7 × 45 mins
L2 as a subject 5 × 30 mins L2 as a subject 5 × 45 mins
Music 3 × 30 mins Environmental studies 4 × 45 mins
Art 4 × 30 mins Art 1 × 45 mins
Physical education 4 × 30 mins Music 1 × 45 mins
Environmental studies 2 × 30 mins Physical education 1 × 45 mins
Religion or ethics 2 × 30 mins European Hours 3 × 45 mins
Recreation 7 × 30 mins Religion or ethics 2 × 45 mins
Total 33 × 30 mins Total 33 × 45 mins
per week per week
Note: All subjects are taught through the L1 of the section except those in italics.
Secondary school education consists of three phases:

1. Grades 6–8: the “observation cycle” (see Table 4)
The role of L2 is extended in this phase, but it is still used in activities that are
relatively context-embedded and cognitively undemanding. Examples of
complementary activities are electronics, computer science, photography, painting,
typing and needlework.
Table 4. Secondary School Curriculum (Grades 6–8) in European Schools

(from Beardsmore, 1995, p. 43)
Subject Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
L1 as a subject 5 × 45 mins 5 × 45 mins 4 × 45 mins
Mathematics 4 × 45 mins 4 × 45 mins 4 × 45 mins

Latin (optional) - - 4 × 45 mins
Integrated science 4 × 45 mins 4 × 45 mins 4 × 45 mins
Religion or ethics 2 × 45 mins 2 × 45 mins 2 × 45 mins
Human sciences* 3 × 45 mins 3 × 45 mins 3 × 45 mins
L3 as a subject - - 4 × 45 mins
L2 as a subject 5 × 45 mins 4 × 45 mins 4 × 45 mins
Graphic & plastic arts 2 × 45 mins 2 × 45 mins 2 × 45 mins
Music 2 × 45 mins 2 × 45 mins 2 × 45 mins
Physical education 3 × 45 mins 3 × 45 mins 3 × 45 mins
Complementary activities 2 × 45 mins 2 × 45 mins 2 × 45 mins
Total 32 × 45 mins 32 × 45 mins 31/33 × 45 mins
* Taught through the medium of the L2 in Grade 8.
Note: a) All subjects are taught through the L1 of the section except those in italics.
b) Those who select Latin may drop either music or graphic and plastic arts.
c) In Grade 6, two optional complementary activities must be selected but may be
dropped in Grades 7 and 8.
2. Grades 9–10: the “semi-specialization cycle” (see Table 5)

Students have more options in this phase. Depending on their choice of elective
courses, over half of the curriculum can be conducted in the students’ L2.

(from Beardsmore, 1995, p. 45) (align Beardsmore with Secondary)
Subject Grades 9 and 10 Elective courses
L1 as a subject 4 × 45 mins Latin 4 × 45mins
Religion or ethics 1 × 45 mins Greek 4 × 45mins
Biology 2 × 45 mins Economics & social sciences 4 × 45mins
Chemistry 2 × 45 mins Plastic arts 2 × 45mins
Physics 2 × 45 mins Music 2 × 45mins
Mathematics* 4 or 6 × 45 mins L4 as a subject 4 × 45mins
L2 as a subject 3 × 45 mins
Physical education 2 × 45 mins
History 2× 45 mins
Geography 2 × 45 mins
Total 27 or 29 × 45mins
* The medium of mathematics depends on the pupil’s choice
b) Enough elective subjects must be chosen to guarantee a curriculum of minimum 31 and
maximum 35 periods per week.
3. Grades 11–12: the “specialization cycle” (see Table 6)

The specialization cycle leads to the European Baccalaureate, the internationally
recognized European school leaving certicate. This means that written examinations
are identical, irrespective of the language they are written in.
Conditions for Success and Learning Outcomes of the European Schools

The conditions leading to the success of the European Schools are summarized as
follows:
1. All teachers are bilingual, but they teach only in their native language. All other staff
members are also bi- or multilingual.
2. The learning of an L2 is given relevance in that there are children in the same
school speaking the L2 as a native language and that the L2 is used as a medium
of instruction from Grade 3. All children go through the same process of transition
from using L1 as a medium of instruction to using L2 as a medium of instruction.
3. In the primary school, oral competence in the L2 is emphasized over written

competence, which is the focus of the secondary school. The focus in the primary
school is on basic vocabulary and sentence structures.
4. Examinations are not important until after Grade 8. Students in early grades can,
therefore, focus more on developing language and thinking skills rather than studying
mainly for examinations, as is often the case in Hong Kong.
5. The learning of a second language takes place in a non-threatening environment,
because all students have to use a weaker language at some time.
6. L1 is maintained both as a subject and as a medium of instruction for at least some
content subjects throughout primary and secondary schooling.
7. Teaching in the L2 moves gradually from cognitively undemanding and context-
embedded activities (e.g., physical education, music, European Hours, sewing and
cooking) to cognitively demanding and context-reduced activities (e.g., history,
geography, social sciences).

(from Beardsmore, 1995, p. 46)
Compulsory subjects Grades 11 & 12
Philosophy 2 × 45 mins
Mathematics 3 or 5 × 45 mins
History 2 × 45 mins
Geography 2 × 45 mins
Physical education 2 × 45 mins
Religion or ethics 1 × 45 mins
Elective courses
Latin 5 × 45 mins
Greek 5 × 45 mins
Physics 4 × 45 mins
Chemistry 4 or 5 × 45 mins
Biology 4 or 5 × 45 mins
Advanced course in L1 as a subject 3 × 45 mins
Advanced course in mathematics 3 × 45 mins
Advanced physics and chemistry 2 × 45 mins
Economics 5 × 45 mins
Advanced course in L2 as a subject 3 × 45 mins
Advanced course in geography 2 × 45 mins
Advanced course in history 2 × 45 mins
Plastic arts 2 × 45 mins
Music 2 × 45 mins
Sociology 2 × 45 mins
Other subjects 2 × 45 mins
b) A pupil must have a timetable with a minimum of 31 and a maximum of 35 periods per
week.
The learning outcomes of the European Schools are summarized as follows:

1. After 1,300 hours of instruction in French as an L2 at the European School of
Brussels (where French is the dominant social language), the students’ competence
in the language is comparable to Canadian French Immersion students after 4,500
hours of instruction. This shows the importance of the larger social and interaction
context of students in language learning.
2. When the students graduate, their best friends in school are often from a different
linguistic sub-section. Most students have developed positive attitudes towards the
L2 culture and L2-speaking people.
3. When students nish secondary school, their productive competence in L1 and L2
is of a standard that would allow them to take examinations in either language. The
most important factor was found to be the relevance and authentic purpose students
felt in learning and using the L2.
It can be seen from the above summary that European Schools seem to provide an even
more effective way of developing L2 prociency than Canadian French Immersion.
The key factor seems to be the mixed or multi-ethnic and multicultural nature of the
student population. The L2 takes on authentic communicative functions for the students
in the school environment, and this greatly enhances students’ L2 learning motivation,
L2 opportunities for use and thus L2 development (a similar favourable condition also
obtained for the Two Way/Dual Language Model discussed below).
The European Schools’ early emphasis on building a solid foundation in L1 literacy
also seems to be an important factor, as valuable literacy-related skills can be transferred
to the L2 later in the students’ school career (Cummins, 2000). The emphasis on early
exposure to L2 both explicitly as a subject and implicitly as a natural social language
among students from different ethnic groups also appears to be an important factor for
success.
Finally, the way in which L2 as a medium of instruction is introduced also seems

to be a key factor for success: L2 is introduced after the student has developed a solid
foundation in the L1 and has studied the L2 as a subject for some years.3 It is also
introduced gradually, rst in a few subjects, which are cognitively undemanding and
context-embedded (e.g., art work, music, European Hours), and only later gradually
to cognitively demanding and context-reduced subjects (e.g., history, social sciences).
However, throughout the school years, L1 remains an important school subject as well as
a medium of instruction in a number of key content subjects.
3. However, this is not to say that early L2 immersion cannot be effective; see discussion in
chapter 3 on early and late immersion.
Two Way/Dual Language Programmes

The third successful example of immersion education is the Two Way/Dual Language
model. In Two Way/Dual Language schools there are approximately equal numbers of
language minority and language majority students in the same classroom. This is a more
appropriate model than total immersion in situations where students’ L1 is not widely
supported in the larger society (e.g., Spanish-speaking Cuban immigrant children in
Florida, US) and thus needs to be maintained as a medium of instruction for at least half
of the lessons in school.
There are a variety of terms used to describe such schools: Two Way schools, Two
Way Immersion, Two Way Bilingual Education, Developmental Bilingual Education,
Dual Language Education, Bilingual Immersion, Double Immersion and Interlocking
Education. The rst Two Way schools in the US appear to date from 1963 in Dade
County, Florida, and were developed by the US Cuban community in that area. During
the 1960s, fteen Two Way schools were established in Dade County. Since that time,
there has been a steady rise in the number of Two Way schools in the US. There are over
170 Two Way schools in the US now. The languages of instruction are predominantly
Spanish/English (over 90% of such schools) but with the following combinations also
represented: Cantonese/English, Portuguese/English, Haitian Creole/English, Korean/
English, Russian/English, Japanese/English, and French/English. Around 85% of all
these schools operate from Kindergarten to Grade 6 (Baker, 2001).
Lindholm-Leary (2001) has documented in detail the critical features of successful
Dual Language Education programmes. These critical features are found in programme
design, implementation and its larger institutional and sociocultural contexts. Following
is a summary of the features described in Lindholm-Leary (2001).
1. Effective Leadership in School
(a) Administrative and principal support: This support is demonstrated in the
structural and functional integration of the programme within the total school
system. Resources are allocated to the programme for staff training and for
curriculum materials development in each language.
(b) Instructional leadership: This leadership may come from a vice-principal,
programme coordinator or resource teacher. The individual has extensive
knowledge of the dual language education model being implemented, second
language development, bilingual and immersion education theory and research,
instructional methodologies, effective classroom practices and the belief that the
selected language education model can work once it is implemented correctly.
The individual needs to be the programme spokesperson, oversee programme
development, planning, coordination and staff training.
2. School Environment
(a) A positive school environment: (i) An orderly, safe and warm environment that
facilitates learning; (ii) an instructional focus and commitment to achievement
that is shared by all; (iii) high expectations for all students; (iv) students who
feel pride in their school; and (v) students (including minority students) who
participate in extracurricular activities.
(b) Additive bilingual environment: All students are given the opportunity to
acquire a second language at no cost to their home language and culture (i.e.,
additive bilingualism rather than subtractive bilingualism).
(c) Co-operative and reciprocal instructional climate: A co-operative and reciprocal
interaction model of teaching is more benecial than the traditional transmission
model of teaching in which the teacher’s task is to impart knowledge or skills to
students. Co-operative learning with appropriate grouping will produce positive
learning outcomes. Successful grouping requires:
• that students work interdependently;
• clearly conceived individual and group accountability for all group
members;
• social equity in the group and in the classroom (Cohen & Lotan, 1995;
Johnson & Johnson, 1990; Johnson et al., 1985; Slavin, 1995).
(d) Cross-cultural components: Effective schools have staff that are committed to
equality, respect students from multi-ethnic and multicultural backgrounds,
and use curriculum materials that represent ethnic and cultural diversity. Every
student is expected to participate in a variety of roles in the classroom, including
leadership roles, and students are socialized to treat each other with respect and
equity.
3. Teachers and Staff

Effective language education programmes have the following characteristics:
(a) High-quality instructional personnel: Teachers have appropriate teaching
credentials and are native or native-like in either or both of the languages in
which they are instructing, to provide cognitively stimulating instruction. They
must be able to at least understand the child’s mother tongue in the initial stages
of language learning, in order to respond appropriately in the second language to
the child’s utterances in the mother tongue, to provide comprehensible input and
maintain linguistic equity in the classroom. Many classrooms have an instructional
assistant for part of the time, and these assistants also require training.
(b) Staff training: There must be pre-service and in-service training in:
• the dual language education model, including bilingual and immersion
research and theory;
• second language development;
• instructional strategies in second language development;
• multicultural and educational equity training; and
• co-operative learning.
4. Instructional Design and Features

(a) Duration of instructional treatment: At least four to six years are required for
students to attain academic prociency, albeit not native-like prociency, in the
L2.
(b) Exposure to optimal dual language input: Optimal input is adjusted to the
comprehension level of the learner, is interesting, challenging and relevant,
and is in sufcient quantity. This requires careful planning in the integration of
language instruction and subject matter presentation and, in the initial stages,
the use of slower, more expanded, simplied and repetitive speech oriented to
the “here and now”; e.g., highly contextualized language and gestures.
(c) Language output — promotion and opportunities: Students should be
encouraged to produce extended discourse, in which they are forced to make
their language coherent, accurate and sociolinguistically appropriate. This
requires both structured tasks and unstructured opportunities involving oral
production. It also requires enforcing a strong language policy in the classroom
that encourages students to use the instructional language.
(d) Focus on academic curriculum: The curriculum should be equivalent to that
for students at the same grades not enrolled in the dual language immersion
programme.
(e) Integrated language arts instruction: Explicit language instruction of grammar
is needed, but it should not follow the traditional translation and memorization
curriculum. It is important to develop a language arts curriculum that species
which linguistic structures are needed (e.g., conditional verb forms) and how
these structures are incorporated into the academic content (e.g., including
imperfect forms of verbs in history subject matter and conditional, future, and
subjective tenses of verbs in mathematics and science content).
(f) Meeting distinct needs during language arts instruction: Teachers need to
understand that they need to cultivate cognitive/academic language prociency
necessary for literacy, particularly for minority students who do not have
literacy support in the home. This requires cross-grade co-ordination planning.
(g) Literacy instruction in two languages: Should children be taught literacy in
their native language rst, and then have the second language added later? Can
children be taught literacy simultaneously in two languages, or will they be
confused? Understanding the familial and community context of the student
population is important in determining which model to use. Research has shown
that the less socially prestigious and powerful language in a society is the one
most subject to language loss. To promote this less powerful language, it should
receive more focus in the early stages of immersion. Also, non-English speaking
students whose parents cannot provide English literacy-related experiences
in the home should receive literacy instruction in their native language rst.
However, if the student’s native language is the societal prestigious language
and well supported in the home and in the community (e.g., language majority
Anglophone students in Canada and the US), early immersion in a second
language (e.g., French) does not place the student at risk of losing her or his
rst language. Research has shown that a gifted student population with ample
familial support can benet from early simultaneous literacy instruction in
both languages (e.g., English and Spanish), but initial instruction in the rst
language (e.g., Spanish) may be more benecial for students coming from less
well-supported and linguistic minority families.
5. Students
(a) Classroom composition: The ratio of speakers of the two languages should not
be more than 2:1.
(b) Although there is little research on the literacy and achievement of African
American children in immersion programmes, there is some research that
indicates that African American children are not negatively affected and may
have positive outcomes (Holobow et al., 1991; Lindholm-Leary, 1994).
(c) Equality in treating students from different social class and language
backgrounds: In many schools, the English speakers come from middle-class
and educated families while speakers of the other language come from working-
class and undereducated families. These differences must be acknowledged to
ensure equal educational opportunity in the classroom for all students.
(d) Students with special learning needs: Students who have learning disabilities
are also accepted in dual language immersion programmes, except those with a
serious speech delay.
(e) Home/school collaboration: Effective programmes tend to incorporate a
variety of home/school collaboration activities. Children’s academic progress
increases when parents support their children’s literacy development at home
(e.g., activities such as reading and listening to children read).
In concluding her summary of the features of effective dual language immersion

programmes, Lindholm-Leary (2001) pointed out that not all features will be appropriate
for all programmes, particularly those serving more homogeneous student populations. It
is therefore important to judge the relevance of these features by taking into consideration
the specic contexts of different student populations. To gain a more concrete picture of
examples of effective dual language immersion programmes, we describe one specic

dual language programme.
Cummins (1999a) has provided a very useful review of one of the longest-
standing Two Way Immersion programmes in the United States: the Oyster Bilingual
School in Washington, DC. Its relevance for the Hong Kong context resides in its clear
demonstration of what can potentially be achieved through bilingual education even for
students who are from relatively low socio-economic backgrounds (Cummins, 1999a).
The following description of the Oyster Bilingual School is taken from Cummins (1999a,
pp. 8–9; emphasis added).
Oyster Bilingual School (Washington, DC). The bilingual programme was started
in 1971 and involves instruction in both Spanish and English for about 50% of the
time in each language from kindergarten through grade 6. Each class is taught by two
teachers, one responsible for English-medium instruction and one for Spanish-medium
instruction. This instructional organization is achieved by means of creative management
of resources rather than by additional external funds (personal communication Elena
Izquierdo, former principal of Oyster School).
Students read in both languages each day so there is simultaneous development

of literacy in the two languages. The student body is comprised of approximately 60%
Spanish L1 (primarily Salvadorean) and 40% English L1 (about half African American,
half Euro-American).
The academic results of this programme have been outstanding. For example, at the
grade 3 level reading, mathematics, language and science scores were 1.6–1.8 median
grade equivalents above norms (percentiles 74–81). The grade 6 grade equivalents were
4.4–6.2 above norms (percentiles 85–96) (1991 data reported in Freeman, 1998).
According to Freeman (1998), the school has evolved a social identities project that
positively evaluates linguistic and cultural diversity and communicates this strongly to
students. In the words of one of the teachers: “it’s much more than language”. Freeman
provides detailed discourse analyses that illustrate how the interactions between educators
and students in Oyster Bilingual School “refuse” the discourse of subordination that
characterizes the treatment of minorities in the wider society and in most conventional
school contexts. She points out that the discourse practices in the school “reect an
ideological assumption that linguistic and cultural diversity is a resource to be developed
by all students, and not a problem that minority students must overcome in order to
participate and achieve at school” (p. 233). Specically, educators have choices in the
way they organize discourse practices and these choices entail signicant consequences
for both language minority and majority students. The school requires all students to
become bilingual and biliterate in Spanish and English, and “to expect, tolerate, and
respect diverse ways of interacting” (p. 27).
In other words, the school “aims to promote social change on the local level by socializing
children differently from the way children are socialized in mainstream US educational
discourse” (p. 27):
Rather than pressuring language minority students to assimilate to the positively

evaluated majority social identity (white middle-class native English-speaking) in order

to participate and achieve at school, the Oyster educational discourse is organized to
positively evaluate linguistic and cultural diversity. ... this socializing discourse makes
possible the emergence of a wide range of positively evaluated social identities, and
offers more choices to both language minority and language majority students than are
traditionally available in mainstream US schools and society. The Oyster educators
argue that students’ socialization through this educational discourse is the reason that
[limited English procient], language minority, and language majority students are all
participating and achieving more or less equally. (p. 27)
The themes that Freeman emphasizes run through virtually all the programmes
for language minority students that have proven successful in elevating academic
achievement (Cummins, 1996). Respect for students’ language and culture is strongly
communicated to students, and they are encouraged to see themselves as potentially fully
bilingual and biliterate. Many two-way bilingual immersion programmes have reported
similarly positive outcomes and these programmes are even endorsed strongly by those
who claim to be opposed to bilingual education. Programmes that are less successful
(e.g., most quick-exit transitional programmes) tend to see the students’ L1 as simply a
temporary bridge to English and do not aspire to bilingualism and biliteracy.
Although generalization from an elementary to a secondary context should be
cautious, a possible implication for Hong Kong and Southeast Asian contexts is the
desirability of communicating strong positive messages to students about the importance
of both their languages. A programme that emphasizes only the more socially prestigious
language to the virtual exclusion of students’ home language risks reinforcing the
educational legacy of colonialism. Research in a number of other contexts suggests that
this pattern results potentially in either ambivalence among students among their L1
and home culture (as a result of internalizing the negative message) or, alternatively, a
rejection of the school language as a potential threat to their identities (Cummins, 1996).
The North American and international data are abundantly clear that this “either-or” forced
choice process is unnecessary: the programmes that work best in developing English
academic skills are those that provide students with the support and encouragement to
become uently bilingual and biliterate.
From Cummins’s account, it can be seen that the Two Way/Dual Language model,
like the European Schools model, upholds strong beliefs in equally respecting and
developing both L1 and L2 prociencies as well as L1 and L2 cultural identities. The
implication for Hong Kong is that, traditionally, far more socio-economic prestige is
attached to English and English-medium education than to Chinese and Chinese-medium
education in the Hong Kong society, and this situation is counter-productive to additive
bilingual and biliterate development of Hong Kong students.
Conditions/Factors for Success in Immersion Education and

Implications for Hong Kong
From the above sections on the three successful examples of immersion education
(Canadian French Immersion, European Schools and Two Way/Dual Language), it can
be seen that immersion education (i.e., using an L2 as a medium of instruction for all or
some content subjects) depends on a number of conditions/factors for its success. These
conditions/factors and their implications for Hong Kong are delineated as follows.
Sociolinguistic Factors
It is important for the students’ rst language (and particularly rst language literacy) to
be well supported by the larger sociolinguistic environment, in both (1) prestige/status
and (2) its widespread and daily use for authentic communicative purposes.
Firstly, if the wider community views the L1 of the student as having a lower social
and/or economic status than that of the second language, then the student is likely to
develop low feelings of self-worth. These feelings will inuence the L1, L2 as well
as academic achievement. The student will have little motivation to learn the L1 (and
L1 literacy) well and will not have a solid L1 literacy foundation, which research has
shown to be essential for L2 literacy development. The student will also be likely to
develop ambivalent or resistant feelings towards L2 and L2 literacy, which is likely to be
perceived as an imposed “Other” language (Cummins, 1996).
Secondly, if the L1 is not used widely both in speech and in print in the larger
society, the student has little exposure to L1 literacy. If she or he attends an L2 total
immersion programme, her or his L1 literacy will be at risk due to the further lack of
classroom exposure to L1 literacy. The student is unlikely to develop L1 literacy and L2
literacy well, resulting in subtractive bilingualism.
For the majority of Hong Kong students, there is a high risk of subtractive
bilingualism. Firstly, English still seems to enjoy a much higher socio-economic status
and prestige than Chinese, even after 1997. Parents and employers seem to place a greater
emphasis on English prociency and literacy than on Chinese literacy.
Secondly, many Hong Kong students seem to have failed to develop a strong
foundation in Standard Modern Chinese literacy (i.e., L1 literacy), not to mention English
literacy (i.e., L2 literacy). It has to be pointed out that, although the spoken language of
Cantonese is widely used in the student’s daily life, it is often not a “high variety” of
Cantonese that is used. Sociolinguists (e.g., Luke and Nancarrow, 1991) have pointed
out that “high” varieties of Cantonese (e.g., Cantonese used in news broadcasts, formal
public speeches and debates) are closer to Standard Modern Chinese in syntax and lexis.
In view of the current widespread sociolinguistic practices of the mass media (e.g., the
language of TV, newspapers and popular magazines is heavily inuenced by colloquial
Cantonese syntax and lexis, and is quite different from Standard Modern Chinese) and the
fact that the majority of Hong Kong students do not speak Putonghua (the spoken form
of Standard Modern Chinese) in their daily life (Tung, 1992), the typical Hong Kong
student’s exposure to Standard Modern Chinese and high/formal varieties of Cantonese
in the wider community is rather limited. Many students, as a result, have difculties
expressing themselves clearly in written Chinese, not to mention English. While the
standards of reading in Chinese among Hong Kong students are considered “relatively
high” internationally, “particularly in the domains of expository and documentary texts”
(Johnson, 1997, p. 182; Cummins, 1999a, p. 15), many students’ inadequate expressive
and writing skills in both Standard Modern Chinese and English are a sign of subtractive
bilingualism and subtractive biliteracy and a cause for concern.
To remedy the situation, language planners need to develop measures to raise the status
and prestige of the Chinese language in Hong Kong (e.g., raising the Chinese language
prociency requirements for civil servants and university admissions), to improve the
quality of the Chinese language used in the mass media, as well as to strengthen the
quality of both Chinese and English language teaching in schools, especially at primary
and junior secondary levels, where foundations in L1 and L2 literacy are laid. More
professional and prociency training opportunities and incentives need to be provided
for pre- and in-service teachers to upgrade their language prociency as well as teaching
methodology (e.g., to move away from a teacher-fronted, non-interactive, classroom
teaching style). In addition, having “a greater focus on language knowledge in the
secondary school programme (e.g., contrastive study of Chinese and English, project
work focused on language and its use in society)” would also help to strengthen students’
“understanding of both Chinese and English literacy” (Cummins, 1999a, p. 15). It is,
however, recognized that language planners/the government alone cannot accomplish
all these tasks; wide societal/community/school/parental support has to be actively
solicited.
In view of the above-mentioned sociolinguistic factors, which are highly non-
conducive to the development of Chinese literacy in Hong Kong, English immersion
education should be introduced after a solid foundation in Chinese literacy skills has been
built in school, especially among student populations who have little literacy support at
home. Partial English immersion should also be introduced gradually, and a balance should
be maintained between the number of subjects taught in English and the number of subjects
taught in Chinese (realized in the classroom as a high/formal variety of spoken Cantonese
and Standard written Chinese ). This is to enable students to continue to develop both
Chinese literacy and English literacy skills in school, as the current wider society does not
strongly support the development of Standard Modern Chinese literacy in Hong Kong.
This stands in contrast with the situation of Canadian French Immersion, in which L1
English literacy development is widely supported in the larger society and the reduction of
English exposure in school due to total French immersion is compensated for by the rich
English exposure and use opportunities in the wider community and the home.
Parental/Home Support Factors

All successful immersion programmes are characterized by high levels of parental and
home support in attention and material support, as well as providing a home environment
which is rich in support for both L1 and L2 linguistic and literacy development, e.g., rich
print environment at home.
The majority of student home environments in Hong Kong, especially those of

disadvantaged students coming from low socio-economic backgrounds, are characterized
by a general lack of quality Chinese reading materials, not to mention the availability of
English print other than English textbooks (Lin, 1996b). Parents, in general, do not know
how, and are seldom involved by schools, to support students’ school language learning,
e.g., by helping to foster language learning strategies and extracurricular reading habits
in their children.
For English immersion education to succeed in Hong Kong, the current level of
parental and home support for the majority of students seems to be inadequate. To remedy
the situation, stronger links between schools and parents need to be developed and more
parental support for students’ learning needs to be solicited. It is recognized that this is not
an easy task, albeit not an impossible one. For instance, the government can capitalize on
parents’ strong desire to enroll their students in an English immersion programme, e.g.,
by making parental involvement a prerequisite for admission into English immersion.
Schools will also need to develop seminars, workshops or school-parent sharing sections
to communicate to parents the important role they play in supporting the Chinese and
English development of their children and the things they can do to achieve that (e.g.,
tuning in to English TV channels some of the time, encouraging their children to do
extracurricular reading in Chinese and English, making available quality reading materials
at home, encouraging their children to do storytelling). For the importance of improving
communication and developing workshops for parents in Singapore preschool immersion
education, see Sharpe, 1991.
Educational/School Programme Factors

One major factor under this category is the professional preparation of English immersion
teachers as well as English-as-a-subject teachers. This appears to be an area which is,
relatively speaking, more amenable to government/language planning efforts than
the above-mentioned areas. All the successful examples of immersion education are
characterized by strong professionalism and high bilingual prociency levels of both
immersion and language teachers. An interactive, collaborative, project-, activity- and
meaning-based teaching methodology and curriculum provide the rich L2 input as well
as opportunities for student productive language use (output) necessary for L2 acquisition
to take place (Cummins, 1999a). Even schools situated in low socio-economic areas
(e.g., the Two Way/Dual Language school described by Cummins (1999a)) can make a
signicant difference in students’ language learning, given high levels of professional,
innovative commitment and enthusiasm on the part of teachers and school administrative
personnel. This is an area in which much can and still needs to be done in Hong Kong.
Another important programme factor concerns the way in which immersion is
introduced and at what level it is introduced. In the Hong Kong context, where neither
English nor Standard Modern Chinese literacy is widely supported by the larger
sociolinguistic environment and the home environment for the majority of students,
the following efforts seem especially important for additive bilingualism to develop for
the majority of students, many of whom come from low SES (socio-economic status),
disadvantaged families: (1) to improve the quality of the teaching of both Chinese and
English, especially during the primary and junior secondary levels, (2) to continue to
maintain Chinese as a medium of instruction in some content subjects even after English
immersion has been introduced (e.g., to allow for a partial immersion, what is termed
“mixed mode”, programme in Hong Kong). Hong Kong has traditionally forced itself
into the inexible dichotomy of either having total immersion or having no immersion
at all. Breaking away from this either-or mentality in language education planning and
exploring other partial immersion options as viable alternatives should be encouraged
(Cummins, 1999a).
Coda
The above three categories of factors appear to be the most important conditions necessary
for the success of immersion education. Other important factors include learner attitude,
commitment, motivation and threshold prociency level. Factors regarding the linguistic
and cultural distance between the L1 and L2, however, do not seem to be essential if other
favourable conditions exist. It appears that, given the presence of the other categories of
conditions and factors for success, a linguistically and culturally distant L2 can also be
learnt well in immersion programmes.
Questions for Discussion

1. The authors classies bilingual education programmes into three broad categories:
maintenance, transitional and enrichment. Which category do you think the bilingual
programme in your area/country falls into with regards to its aims and contexts of
implementation?
2. The three immersion programmes elaborated in this chapter — Canadian French
Immersion, European Schools and Two Way/Dual Language Programmes — were
developed in different social, political and economic contexts. Write a summary to
compare these contexts. Which context is closest to your own societal context? Does
it mean that a similar programme can be developed, or does it require adaptation?
3. Three types of factors are summarized to explain the success in immersion education:
sociolinguistic, parental/home support, and educational/school programme. How do
these factors positively or negatively inuence the planning of language policy and
practice in your own contexts?

Bilingual Edu in Different Contexts Principles and Practice

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Bilingual Edu in Different Contexts Principles and Practice

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2 Bilingual Education in Different

Contexts: Principles and Practice

This chapter presents an overview of the theoretical and empirical literature

Bilingual Education: Sociohistorical Contexts, Aims and Types

Diversity of Aims and Contexts

1. To assimilate individuals or groups into the mainstream society; to socialize people

Different aims seem to be important in different societal/political contexts. For instance,

or public consensus-building, it is important to make accessible to the public research and

Three Main Types of Programme: Maintenance, Transitional and

Table 1. A Summary of Different Types of Bilingual Education Programmes

Minority Language Autonomy Bilingualism

Canadian French Immersion

■ Goals of Canadian French Immersion Programmes

■ Principal Programme Types in Canadian French Immersion

2. Early partial immersion2

Kindergarten through Grade 8. L2 use decreases to approximately 35% in Grades 9 and

3. Middle (delayed) partial immersion

4. Late partial immersion

programmes in Canada described above. Table 2 outlines a description of some French

Partial Immersion French

■ Levels of L2 Prociency Achieved and Amount of Classroom Exposure to L2

foundation in L1 literacy enables them to perform better in L2 literacy-related tasks

Programme Outcomes of Canadian French Immersion

Conditions for Success in Canadian French Immersion

Of the above-listed conditions/factors, teacher professional preparation and instructional

Another famous successful example of immersion education is the European Schools

Origins and Goals of the European Schools

Organization of the European Schools

Curriculum of the European Schools

Table 3. Primary School Curriculum in European Schools (from Beardsmore,

Secondary school education consists of three phases:

Table 4. Secondary School Curriculum (Grades 6–8) in European Schools

Mathematics 4 × 45 mins 4 × 45 mins 4 × 45 mins

2. Grades 9–10: the “semi-specialization cycle” (see Table 5)

Table 5. Secondary School Curriculum (Grades 9–10) in European Schools

3. Grades 11–12: the “specialization cycle” (see Table 6)

Conditions for Success and Learning Outcomes of the European Schools

3. In the primary school, oral competence in the L2 is emphasized over written

Table 6. Secondary School Curriculum (Grades 11–12) in European Schools

The learning outcomes of the European Schools are summarized as follows:

Finally, the way in which L2 as a medium of instruction is introduced also seems

Two Way/Dual Language Programmes

3. Teachers and Staff

4. Instructional Design and Features

In concluding her summary of the features of effective dual language immersion

examples of effective dual language immersion programmes, we describe one specic

Students read in both languages each day so there is simultaneous development

Rather than pressuring language minority students to assimilate to the positively

evaluated majority social identity (white middle-class native English-speaking) in order

Conditions/Factors for Success in Immersion Education and

Parental/Home Support Factors

The majority of student home environments in Hong Kong, especially those of

Educational/School Programme Factors

Questions for Discussion

Вам также может понравиться