The Choice of Medium of Instruction

THE CHOICE OF MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION IN HK SECONDARY SCHOOLS : A BRIEF CRITICAL REVIEW

Kam Kwok Fei, Iris Comments

The debate over the medium of instruction in the Hong Kong educational domain has a long history. The subject is a crucial one because it is directly linked to the qualitative aspect of education. It has been a major area of concern of most educationists and researchers.

As early as Hong Kong became the colony of Britain there have been government reports over the language issue. Like the Brewin Report in 1902, it gave an undue emphasis on English teaching with an attempt to gain imperial interests (see Fong, 1991). It is a common practice for a colonial government to cultivate her language to be superior. English as an instructional medium was quite a firm language policy of the government until the eighties when reports and researches found that the effectiveness of English medium in teaching was undesirable. According to Lo (1991), the presentation of government publications typically Llewellyn Report and Burney Report suggested that the government tended to change its attitude from supporting the English medium at its early position to encourage the use of the Chinese medium at a later period. Because these publications primarily pinpointed the ineffectiveness of using English as the medium of instruction in secondary schools.

There are also papers and researches examining the place of mother tongue and English in this bilingual society. As stated by Gibbons (1989), English enjoyed an extraordinary high status in Hong Kong where over 98 per cent of people are of Chinese extraction. English is influential both within and outside the territory. English is the major language of official communication within the civil service. There are only a small number of people who are able to speak and write effective English. They are usually regarded as elites and are examples to many of the ordinary citizens. Externally, English is the main international language of activities like banking and international business. A good command of English is essential to attain personal, economic as well as social advancements. Under such circumstances, Fu (1987) described `English is the passport, it is the prestige, it is the profession and parents wants their children to get on the boat and to stay there.' (1987:29) His comment exactly reflects people's attitude towards English.

In addition, Phillipson (1992) claimed that English performed a crucial role in periphery- English countries. He argued that English bore a social stratification function. A good proficiency in English was a necessity for upward mobility and privileged position in a society.

A study done by Chan (1986) has highlighted the present status of Chinese and English language in Hong Kong. He concluded that the place of mother tongue depended quite heavily on the business, academic and professional values people held of that particular language. He also developed a behaviour determinants model in which language choice was made. The model was divided into internal and external factors. The internal factors were those like the decision makers' beliefs and values while the external ones took into account the legal historical as well as political contexts of a society (see Chan, 1991). Researches that were mentioned were not comprehensive. They only gave a general picture of language use pattern in Hong Kong. There were no logical and convincing explanations of why English was so dominant throughout the territory. The study by Tam (1987) was influential in the sense that he examined the influence of various institutions on individual's language choice. Although it can be found from the Education Commission Report Number One (1984) that individual school authority has the freedom to decide which medium of instruction is to be used, the decision is actually influenced by the demands in the society. Tam claimed that it was due to the strong parental preference over English of its high market value. This explained why the number of Anglo-Chinese secondary schools significantly outnumbered that of Chinese middle ones. Most importantly, he put the whole language choice issue into a conflict perspective which was somehow political. He argued that individuals tended to learn in a language that was used by the ruling class and could improve their chances to power and prestige. Chinese language does not enjoy a high status as English does is probably due to the inequality of social and economic opportunities attached to it. By that, Tam's study concluded that the language policy and practices in the government business and tertiary institutes had enormous effects on individual's choice of medium of instruction. Language choice thus is not solely made in the educational domain. Rather, it is the result of the interplay of the social economic and political forces in the society.

The whole issue is related to the question of who chooses the language to be used. The decision is clearly in the hands of the power-holder in the society, that is the state or the government. According to Landis (1992), there is an unbalance of power and authority in every groupings of people. Some lead, some follow; some make decisions, others take orders. Conflicts always arise over these differences in power relationships and interests. Chapman (1986) claimed that all social institutions in a capitalist society strive to fulfill the interests and needs of the ruling class. Schools in the education system thus were provided by the state not to give child equal opportunities, but to meet the need of capitalist employers for a disciplined and skilled workforce. Schools were seen as a mechanism for social control to help maintain political stability. As a corollary to Chapman's saying, Meighan (1986) mentioned that language issue was related to the distribution of power, resources and opportunities. English education therefore, modeled intricate social patterns among different groups in the society. A person with good English is going to possess far more power and enjoy a high status than those who know little about the language.

Indeed, the subtle relationships among political power, language and social groups have to be put into perspective. With reference to Tollefson (1990), language policy should be interpreted within a framework which emphasizes power and competing interests. He further argued that these language policies of making English superior were made to serve the interests of the powerful or the state. English, being the minority and foreign language, is only confined to a particular segment of people in a society. This creates an overall impression that those people who use English are elite and are prestigious.

Chinese language as the medium of instruction in secondary schools is educationally and psychologically desirable. As early as in 1984 when the first Education Commission Report was published, it acknowledged the fact that `with all other things being equal, mother tongue is the best instructional medium for teaching and learning'(see Education Commission Report No. 1 1984:43). Cumulative research findings indicate that mother tongue education facilitates the intake of knowledge, mastery of concepts, free flow of ideas and discussions in classroom (see Education Department, 1965). Nevertheless, there are hindrances of switching the medium of instruction from the long adopted English to Chinese. The dilemma of the language policy is left to be solved by the government. A possible policy option suggested by So (1992) is the adoption of multilingual approach to education which advocate a combined use of Chinese, Cantonese, English and Putonghua. He claimed that this approach could accommodate the changing linguistic demands of Chinese as well as meet the sociolinguistic needs of Hong Kong.

There are areas of concern that have not been vigorously focused on by previous researchers. One of the areas is the political dimension attached to the choice of medium of instruction. Some primary data are helpful in the analysis of the people's attitudes towards the two languages.

References

Chan, J. (1986). "The place of Mother tongue in a Bilingual Society", New Horizons, No. 27, pp. 6-12. Chan, J. (1991). "Choice of Medium of Instruction: A Challenge for the School in the 90's", New Horizons, No. 32, pp. 11-17. Chapman, K. (1986). The Sociology of Schools. London: Tavistock, pp. 31-51. Education Department (1965). Education Policy. Hong Kong: Government Printer, p.113. Do. (1984). Education Commission Report No. 1. Hong Kong: Govt Printer, p.40. Fong, Y.W. (1991). The Education System Hong Kong. Hong Kong: The Society of Educators, pp. 226-227. Fu, G. S. (I987). The Hong Kong Bilingual. In R. Lord and N.L. Cheng (eds), Language Education in Hong Kong. HK: Chinese University Press, pp.27-49. Gibbons, J. (1989). The Issue of the Language of Instruction in the Lower Forms of Hong Kong Secondary Schools. In C. Kennedy (Ed.), Language Planning and English Language Teaching. Hong Kong: Prentice-Hall, pp. 123-134. Landis, J.R. (1992). Sociology: Concepts and Characteristics. Belmont: Wadsworth, pp. 14-15. Lo, L.F. (1991). "The Medium of Instruction Issue Re-visited", Educational Research Journal, Vol.6, pp.63-67. Meighan, R, (1986). A Sociology Of Educating. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 260-277. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 16- 37. So, W.C. (1992). Language-based Bifurcation of Secondary Schools in Hong Kong: Past. Present & Future. in .K.K. Luke (Ed.), Into the Twenty First Century: Issues of Language in Education in Hong Kong. HK: Linguistic Society of Hong Kong pp. 69-95. Tam, T.K. (1986). "The Impact of Governmental and Institutional Language Policy and Practices on the Individual's Choice of the Instructional Medium in Schools in Hong Kong", Educational Research Journal No. 1, pp. 35-40. Tollefson, J.W. (1990). Planning Language, Planning Inequality. London: Longman pp.201-212.