[lg policy] Hong Kong: What’s the best way for students to gain English proficiency?

[Harold Schiffman]

 What’s the best way for students to gain English proficiency?

In view of the demands of a knowledge-based society and the labor market,
the Hong Kong SAR government has adopted a language policy that seeks to
nurture “bi-literate and tri-lingual” citizens.

Immersing students in an English-rich environment is considered one of the
key functions of educational institutions.

According to the latest data from the Census and Statistics Department,
89.5 percent of Hong Kong people are Cantonese speakers.

The language is widely adopted in homes, schools, banks, courts, hospitals,
mass media, government departments and many other settings.

Though English is also an official language, using Cantonese alone would be
sufficient for survival.

>From the perspective of the Education Bureau, in order to compensate for
the students’ inadequate use of English in daily life, it must be used
regularly and widely in schools to maximize their exposure to the language.

That’s the reason why the bureau forbids teachers from using Cantonese for
any reason in subjects where English has been adopted as the medium of
instruction (EMI), whether to explain difficult concepts or facilitate
academic discussions.

This policy has been in place since the 1990s, upon the recommendation of
the Education Commission Reports.

It is believed that code-mixing – the mixed use of English and Cantonese in
the classroom – would prevent students from gaining maximum exposure to the
English language, and the infiltration of Cantonese would hinder students
from mastering English.

However, I beg to differ. First of all, it is uncertain if there is a
causal relationship between code-mixing and the declining proficiency in
English.

To my knowledge, there has not been any empirical evidence supporting this
claim.

In fact, based on my own experience, Hongkongers who have adopted
code-mixing are fluent English speakers.

There are many complex reasons to account for the declining English
proficiency among Hong Kong students, and putting the blame on code-mixing
alone is not convincing.

Meanwhile, many academic studies indicate that while learners are
developing a second language, they are likely to experiment; they tend to
use their knowledge of the mother tongue to learn and become proficient in
the target language. This phenomenon is known as language transfer.

While studies worldwide suggest that as long as teachers can wisely and
strategically speak in the mother tongue to teach students and help them
achieve learning goals, code-mixing can achieve desirable learning outcomes
and encourage active student participation.

But since the education bureau’s instruction of “maximum exposure, no
mixing of codes” is a rigid, top-down approach, no ground is left for
improvisation of teaching.

Band 1 students who are capable of using English completely in EMI classes
will largely remain unaffected by this policy.

But in the case of band 2 or 3 students, teachers should be allowed to exercise
their judgment and fine-tune their lessons with the use of appropriate
amounts of Cantonese instructions. This in turn would allow the students to
keep up with the curriculum.

We believe the bureau should let bilingual teachers apply their
professional judgment in teaching.

As the teachers understand their students’ needs, they should have to right
to switch to the learners’ first language for quick explanation, for
example.

And if students are encouraged to express themselves in their mother tongue
first and then use English, they will be able to think bilingually and be
able to organize and express their thoughts well.

In short, a complete English environment of instruction does not guarantee
learners’ mastery of the language.

*Leung Wai-mun is the co-author of this article that appeared in the Hong
Kong Economic Journal on Jan. 21*

http://www.ejinsight.com/20170210-what-s-the-best-way-for-students-to-gain-english-proficiency/

-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to its
members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner or
sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who
disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal, and to write
directly to the original sender of any offensive message.  A copy of this
may be forwarded to this list as well.  (H. Schiffman, Moderator)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20170210/3244f8e3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list