From Monocultural to Multicultural: an Expanding Knowledge-Base Required of L1 Chinese Teachers in Hong Kong Pamela Leung Hong Kong Institute of Education

From monocultural to multicultural: An expanding knowledge-base required of L1 Chinese teachers in Hong Kong Pamela Leung Hong Kong Institute of Education

Abstract: Hong Kong has been a popular city where the East meets the West. Despite British rule for 150 years, the use of English has been confined to the legal, commercial and higher education arenas. The first language (L1) of nearly 7 million people in Hong Kong is Chinese and the spoken dialect Cantonese is commonly used as a social language. To teach the Chinese Language subject, a schoolteacher usually uses Cantonese as the medium of instruction as Cantonese is considered the L1 of both the teacher and students. Such convention was challenged when the sovereignty of Hong Kong was returned to the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1997. By the national standard in PRC, schools should adopt Putonghua (Mandarin) as the teaching medium regardless of any local dialects. Although it is not yet an official norm, many schools in Hong Kong have started teaching Chinese Language in Putonghua. As a result, pre-service teachers are expected to be proficient not only in Putonghua but also in teaching Chinese through a non-native language. While the effectiveness of teaching Chinese in Putonghua is still controversial, the scenario is worsened by the steady growth of non-Chinese speaking (NCS) population in last decades. Scattered in different schools, some 40,000 students from non-Chinese ethnic background have to study Chinese Language so as to live an ordinary life in Hong Kong. In addition to being capable to teach Chinese students L1 Chinese in different media (Cantonese or Putonghua), pre-service teachers would also need to be prepared to teach NCS students according to the L1 Chinese Language curriculum.

To depict an update knowledge base (Grossman, Wilson & Shulman, 1989) required of Chinese language teachers in the changing social context and to reveal the complexity of learning to become a schoolteacher of Chinese in Hong Kong, this paper will adopt a content analysis method to examine the official curriculum and assessment guidelines (Curriculum Development Council, 2001, 2004, 2008, 2014) for different target groups of students and discuss the implications for L1 teacher education in the local and global contexts.

Keywords: Teacher knowledge, Language teacher education, Language curriculum

1. Chinese language education in Hong Kong

Language education in Hong Kong has been a special issue due to its specific political background. Despite the fact that the majority of residents (approximately 99%) in Hong Kong speak Cantonese Chinese (HKWGLP, 1994), Chinese is not the only official language. Before the British Government returned its sovereignty to China in 1997, English occupied a uniquely important position. Even since the handover of sovereignty back to China, English has continued to be an official language. Moreover, English has been designated as the official medium of instruction in schools. Chinese has been taught as a school subject only since the 1950's when public examinations were instituted at the end of primary and secondary schooling (Tang, 2002). Before the 1950's, the school structure and curriculum of Chinese in Hong Kong was modeled on that of Mainland China (Tse et al., 1995, p.9).

According to Tse et al. (1995), "Chinese" in Hong Kong has a complex meaning, referring to writing using traditional complex characters and Cantonese speech. Although the shared Chinese written language (Modern Standard Chinese) is largely understood by almost all literate Chinese communities, the Cantonese speech does not correspond completely to the written form. Because of the heavy emphasis on set texts in Classical and Modern Chinese in the Chinese Language curriculum, there are persisting discrepancies between the written language taught at school and students’ "social language" (Cantonese) (HKWGLP, 1994, p.8).

Lee (1997) argues that because Putonghua (Mandarin) is the national standard spoken language in China, it should be the mother tongue of all Chinese people. However, because most Hong Kong people speak Cantonese, it is more accurate to consider Cantonese to be the "first mother tongue" and Putonghua to be the "second mother tongue" of most Hong Kong people. Hence, Chinese language education in Hong Kong is a "second mother tongue" education because the written Modern Standard Chinese that most Hong Kong people use is closest to Putonghua. The written language Hong Kong students learn does not match their spoken language.

2. Chinese Language as a school subject

The interpretation of 中國語文 (Chinese Language) as the title of a subject in both primary and secondary schools has been controversial among language educators for decades. As the meaning of the two characters 語 and 文 can be viewed from different perspectives, 語文 has been interpreted as 語言文字 (language and script)

(Pang, 1984), 語言文章 (language and writing) (Lee, 1991), 語言文學 (language and literature) (So, 1983b) and, to some extent, 語言文化 (language and culture) (So, 1983a). As Z.G. Zhang (1994) points out, "Despite the different interpretations of 文 in 語文 since 1949, most scholars agree that 語 refers to 'language'" (p.140). The differences in the interpretations of 文 represent different emphases in Chinese language teaching.

The debate on the nature of Chinese language teaching in Hong Kong was triggered in 1974 by the separation of the discipline into two secondary school subjects, Chinese Language and Chinese Literature, following the practice of English language education. A focus of concern was that the teaching of the mother tongue should not follow the teaching of a second language. Another key concern was whether Chinese Language should include the teaching of literature and culture in addition to the teaching of language skills.

Arguments for the inclusion of literature and culture in teaching Chinese Language reflect the thinking that originates from traditional Chinese language education. Various language educators have pointed out that the teaching of Chinese language is implied in the teaching of Chinese literature (Chan, 1987; Lee, 1991; Pang, 1984; So, 1983a, 1983b). P. K. Wong (1998) suggests that 語文 in Chinese has always been ambiguous because it refers to both language and literacy. In his view, the Chinese tradition of teaching 語文 to students is to make them literate so that they can be educated to become all-rounded persons, implying that to be literate in Chinese does not only mean to be able to read and write, but also to be cultivated. Similarly, Z. G. Zhang (1999) affirms that the teaching of reading in Chinese has a long tradition of emphasising both 文 and 道, whereas 文 refers to language and rhetoric and 道 refers to an overall understanding of ancient scholars' thinking. In line with traditional thinking, Chinese language teaching is perceived as a means to appreciate literature and to recognise culture. Hence, the literature and culture components are indispensable to the teaching of Chinese Language.

On the other hand, some scholars are of the view that the teaching of language skills is more fundamental to the teaching of Chinese Language than the development of personal character or appreciation of literature. Lee (1991), Wang (1984) and Yu (1987) emphasise the importance of training students’ language skills in teaching the Chinese Language subject. According to Lee (1991), because of the discrepancy between the spoken language and the written language, using literary works as teaching materials is inevitable. However, emphasising solely the appreciation of

literary works in the teaching of Chinese Language is impractical and does not meet the needs of society.

3. Chinese Language curricula and the effectiveness of teaching

After a prolonged debate in the education sector, a new set of Chinese Language curricula from primary to matriculation was formulated in the 1990s (CDC, 1990a, 1990b, 1991). With a more balanced emphasis on the teaching of the four language skills, i.e., listening, speaking, reading and writing, and the inclusion of an explicit cultural component, the new Chinese curriculum for matriculation (CDC, 1991) is considered an improvement in terms of teaching Chinese as a first language (Li, 1995). The dominant view is that although Chinese Language should foster moral characters and cultivate the appreciation of literature, its main task is to develop the language abilities of students.

Given a clearer direction for the teaching of Chinese since the early 1990s, the general efficacy of Chinese language teaching seems to be improving progressively. According to the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination Annual Reports (HKEA, 1994, 1999; HKEAA, 2003, 2006), the passing rate of Chinese Language was 58.5% in 1994, 58.8% in 1999, 64.1% in 2003 and 68.4 % in 2006. The spirit of teaching Chinese as L1 was firmly stemmed in the subsequent Education Reform during the turn of the century. As stated in the new curriculum guide (CDC, 2001) , The learning of Chinese Language includes nine domains: Reading, Writing, Listening, Speaking, Literature, Chinese Culture, Morality and Affection, Thinking, and Language self-learning. These learning areas are dispensable and interdependent. The learning of the Chinese Language should be led by Reading, Writing, Listening, Speaking which at the same time serve as a spur to the other domains (p.9). Following the main aim of equipping students to become life-long learners by "learning to learn" in the Education Reform, the fundamental difference between the Chinese Language curricula in the 1990s and the 2000s lies in the rationale: the former being "knowledge-oriented" while the latter being "ability-oriented" (Fok & Wong, 2010). A major challenge of the new curriculum to most teachers and students is the cancellation of prescribed texts for public examination together with the introduction of a range of new assessment methods. Besides, in addition to reading and writing, speaking, listening and integrated language skills are assessed. Such drastic change not only demands teachers for changing their practices, but also guides students to different modes of learning Chinese Language. As reflected in the

passing rates of Chinese Language in the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination (69.9% in 2007, 71.6% in 2009, 69% in 2011) (HKEAA, 2007, 2009, 2011), the impact of new curriculum and assessment methods on student learning outcomes is on a whole positive. Upon completion of the secondary education, the design of Chinese Language subject seems to meet the learning needs of the majority (around 70%) of Hong Kong students. Nevertheless, when students proceed to senior level of study before entering university, how to secure good results in public examinations becomes more imminent then learning to be a life-long learner in the long run. With the relatively disappointing results of Chinese Language in the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination (HKDSE), i.e., a passing rate of 49.2% in 2012, 51.5% in 2013, 50.7% in 2014 respectively, there were voices from the public requesting a review of the curriculum and assessment. At the end, the Education Bureau has decided to adopt 12 prescribed texts in Classical Chinese for senior secondary school students from the 2014/15 academic year and these will be assessed in the 2018 HKDSE (Economic Daily News, 2014; HKEAA, 2014).

4. An alternative medium of instruction and its implications

For various reasons, Putonghua being the "second mother tongue" of most Hong Kong students has gradually become a popular medium in teaching Chinese Language. One of the general beliefs is that Putonghua as a medium of instruction for teaching Chinese (PMI) will enhance the "Chinese language proficiency" in students. Responsible for this trend is first, the directive of the Curriculum Development Council (2001) that as a long-term goal, Putonghua should be adopted as the medium of instruction for teaching Chinese Language, and second, the endorsement of the Standing Committee on Language and Research (SCOLAR, 2003) of "the Curriculum Development Council's long-term vision to use Putonghua to teach Chinese Language" (3.2.14). Up to 2014, a total of 160 schools (about 16%) have joined the "Teaching Chinese in PMI" Scheme and received additional financial support from the government in implementing PMI. According to a survey conducted by a PMI concern group (Hong Kong Language Studies, 2014), about 70% of primary schools have already started or planned to teach Chinese Language in PMI and 25% of these schools have adopted PMI at all levels. In the same survey, 25% of secondary schools indicated the use of PMI in teaching the language subject at junior secondary levels and the teaching medium will switch back to students' "first mother tongue" Cantonese in their senior years.

Although no specific guidelines or curriculum design related to PMI has been promulgated, the change in teaching medium is not a simple switch of language channel. The substitution of Cantonese by Putonghua as the teaching medium not only affects language proficiency training, but also impacts on the teaching of various aspects covered in Chinese Language to be studied as a L1 subject. As concluded by Ki (2014), the objectives of learning L1 is to receive and inherit the traditional thoughts and values of the respective ethnic group whereas the objectives of learning L2 is mainly for communication. L2 learners need the language to understand the culture in their living environment and at work.

For the local Chinese students in Hong Kong, learning Chinese Language through PMI is in a sense learning L1 through a L2 medium. Cummins (1981, 2000) suggests two important concepts: basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP). BICS refer to communication skills that enable students to learn a L2 in a language-rich classroom environment, and through these, students can attain a level of language proficiency close to that of native speakers. Nevertheless, they have to reach further cognitive proficiency in the L2 because social language proficiency does not enable them to handle teaching materials and curricula in schools. Based on these concepts, the adoption of PMI in teaching Chinese Language for local Hong Kong students can be seen as the progression from learning Putonghua (BICS) to learning in Putonghua (CALP). Schools should consider both student characteristics and different language teaching theories in designing an ideal Chinese Language curriculum to be taught in PMI.

5. The third wave of L1- L2 curriculum dispute and its implications

The above sketch of Chinese language education in Hong Kong shows the impacts of political and social changes on the design and implementation of the Chinese Language curriculum. Having been criticized for modeling on a L2 design in the 1990s, the new Chinese Language curriculum formulated in the 2000s is well recognised as taken a L1 approach with a more balanced emphasis on the four language skills and the integration of cultural elements and the development of self-learning abilities. Whether the implementation of the L1 curriculum in Putonghua or Cantonese will yield better results is yet to be confirmed, using the same curriculum for teaching non-Chinese speaking students has caused serious concern in the general public.

According to the 2011 Hong Kong Population Census, there were some 32,000 minorities under the age of 15 who should attend school for basic education especially Chinese language skills. However, there has been a lack of quality and appropriate education to these non-Chinese speaking students who are from ethnic backgrounds of Pakistan, Indian, Nepalese, Filipino, Indonesian and Vietnamese etc. It took decades of negotiation for the Chinese Language curriculum to be settled on the right track of L1 for local school students whose mother tongue is Chinese. While there are still ongoing revisions for ensuring the expected learning outcomes, the curriculum was drawn as major reference for teaching Chinese to non-Chinese speaking students. In 2008, the "Supplementary Guide to the Chinese Language Curriculum for Non-Chinese Speaking Students" was issued. It is stated clearly that the Guide should be read together with other curriculum guides for Chinese Language Education, which refers to the teaching and learning of Chinese Language as L1. In the 2014 Policy Address, the government announced the "Chinese Language Curriculum Second Language Learning Framework" (L2 Framework) for ethnic minorities students and schools were advised to follow in teaching Chinese as a L2. However, the Framework (CDC, 2014) by and large remains to be elaboration of the L1 Chinese Language Curriculum. The questions for all stakeholders are: Should L2 teaching of Chinese be treated the same as teaching Chinese as L1? If not, what are the differences? What do Chinese L1 teachers need to know in order to become Chinese L2 teachers?

6. A comparison of the Chinese Language frameworks

As stated in the L2 Framework, the main purpose of the document is to supplement the principles, strategies and recommendations for implementing the L1 Chinese Language Curriculum for teaching Chinese as L2 for non-Chinese speaking students. The L2 Framework was developed based on the learning objectives and "learning progress framework" of those in the L1 Curriculum. Within the L2 Framework, the learning process from Primary 1 to Secondary 6 is divided into eight stages with the learning outcomes of Chinese language skills specified for each stage. All stages in the L2 Framework are mapped with the L1 "learning progress framework" to show the alignment. The rationale is that all students in Hong Kong should learn the same Chinese language. The ethnic minorities students should not be deprived of the opportunity to study the proper L1 Chinese Language curriculum by being taught an "easier" curriculum of Chinese Language. Hence, the L2 Framework aims at dividing the ordinary learning process in L1 Chinese into smaller steps for L2 learners, and teachers are expected to adapt the L1 curriculum for meeting the special learning

needs of non-native speakers of Chinese. The mapping of L1 and L2 learning stages in the Framework can be illustrated by an example in Table 1.

Table 1 A comparison between learning outcomes of listening in Stage 1 Comprehension, Analysis and Synthesis NLL(1.1)1 Can understand speeches related to personal,

family and school life. NLL(1.1)2 Can roughly understand matters in short discourses. NLL(1.1)3 Can understand main points in conversations. NLL(1.1)4 Can understand matters and things narrated Stage 1 LL1.1 and explained in simple speeches. Can understand simple narratives and NLL(1.1)5 descriptions in speeches, and feel the Can understand main points of stories, and feel the emotions from speaker's apparent emotions which the speeches express. modal.

As can be seen in Table 1, there are different sub-levels within a learning stage. Among the eight stages of learning, Stage 1 refers to the elementary stage which students start their formal study in school, normally from Primary 1. LL1.1 stands for the first sub-level of Level Listening, there are LL1.2 so on so forth. With regard to listening comprehension, the L2 Framework on the right column divides the LL1.1 learning outcomes for L1 students into five "steps" for non-Chinese speaking students, specifying in greater detail the text types, scope of tasks and abilities that students are expected to demonstrate. Nevertheless, as NCS students may enter schools and start learning Chinese at different time, there are secondary school students learning Chinese from Level 1 and some students in primary schools may have reached higher levels. The individual differences in Chinese language proficiency among NCS students cause another practical problem in teaching. To shown an overview of the relation between the L1and L2 frameworks, a preliminary analysis is conducted by means of word cloud (HTML5). The contents of the frameworks were input and the frequency of word use in the frameworks were synthesised and represented in a visual format in Figures 1 to 4. The original documents are in Chinese only and the literal translation in English is for reader's easy reference.

Figure 1 A word cloud comparison of the L1 and L2 frameworks—Listening

Figure 2 A word cloud comparison of the L1 and L2 frameworks—Speaking

Figure 3 A word cloud comparison of the L1 and L2 frameworks—Reading

Figure 4 A word cloud comparison of the L1 and L2 frameworks—Writing

Figures 1 to 4 are word cloud comparisons of the L1 and L2 frameworks in terms of teaching and learning the four basic language skills listening, speaking, reading and writing. Such comparison provides a visual representation for the text data in the curriculum document. The keywords are automatically detected and shown by an online software. The relative prominence of each keyword is reflected in the font size, i.e., the larger a keyword, the more important the concept it represents. As shown in the figures, the L2 word clouds are in general denser as the L2 Framework literally contains more words and descriptions. Nevertheless, the keywords in each pair of clouds are mostly similar, with variance mainly in the font size. For instances, the use of audiovisual materials is emphasised more in the teaching of L2 listening (Figure 1) and L2 reading (Figure 3), the use of simple expressions is stressed in the teaching of L2 speaking (Figure 2) and examples are provided to illustrate the learning outcomes of different practical writings (Figure 4). These visual representations not only indicate the subtle differences in the emphases of the L1 and L2 teaching and learning,

but also imply the requirements of teachers' knowledge and abilities to adapt the L1 curriculum for the L2 learners.

7. Coping with student assessments

The evolution of the Chinese Language curriculum in Hong Kong has gone through many twists and turns. The new curriculum developed at the turn of the century has re-established Chinese Language as L1 covering a broad range of traditional Chinese thoughts and values. In addition, the Education Reform introduced a new notion of "assessment for learning". Unlike the prevailed summative assessment at the end, the importance of formative assessment throughout the learning process is emphasised. While the new curriculum emphasizes equal importance of formative assessment and summative assessment, the focus of assessment has also shifted from "knowledge-oriented" to "ability-oriented", meaning that students can no longer study prescribed texts for assessment. For instance, the assessment of reading covers a variety of abilities including text recognition and reading, comprehension, analysis and synthesize, appreciation of language, literature appreciation, mastering of audiovisual information, mastering of reading strategies etc. Students are expected to read more extensively. On the other hand, teachers are suggested to use different assessment methods according to different learning outcomes, e.g., to use written exam and spoken exam to assess students’ reading and writing abilities, to assess students’ moralities and affections by daily observations (CDC, 2001: 41).

No matter how the education authority promotes the delicacy of the L2 Framework in paving the way for NCS students to learn Chinese as L1, the practicality of such notion is directly challenged by the fact that most NCS students are incapable of taking the same Chinese assessment as ethnic Chinese students. As a result, NCS students have to obtain other recognised qualifications in Chinese for further education or employment and teachers need new knowledge for preparing students for pubic examinations that are detached from the local school curriculum.

From 2012 and onwards, school leavers need to take the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education (HKDSE) exams for entering university. Chinese Language as a core subject of HKDSE assesses students in listening, speaking, reading, writing and comprehensive language use in different papers (HKEAA, 2010). For instances, in the Reading exam, students are given 1 hour and 15 minutes to answer about 33 questions extracted from 4 articles-- 2 in classical Chinese and 2 in modern Chinese, which include multiple choices, fill in the blanks, answer in full sentences, and

explanation. In the Writing exam, students have to write no less than 650~750 words in 1.5 hour. Even local Chinese speaking students find it hard to pass the Chinese subject in HKDSE.

In recent years, NCS students in Hong Kong are allowed to take the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) and the International General Certificate of Secondary Education (IGCSE) exam in lieu of HKDSE for fulfilling the admission requirements of undergraduate studies. As GCSE and IGCSE are exams administered by assessment authorities in the United Kingdom for L2 learners, NCS students in Hong Kong who intend to take these exams must fulfil the following conditions: i) have learned Chinese Language less than six years in their primary and secondary school lives; or ii) have learned an adjusted easier non-mainstream Chinese curriculum.

Regardless of the differences in the format of the two exams, the contents specified indicate a totally different nature of learning the Chinese language from a L2 perspective. As shown in Table 2, the topics covered are related to practical communication and daily life experiences.

Table 2 A comparison between the assessment content of GCSE and IGCSE GCSE IGCSE Speaking and Writing:  House, home and daily routines  Sport and leisure  Social activities, fitness and health  Travel and Tourism  Home and abroad  Business, work and employment  Education and employment  Media and Culture  The modern world and the Listening and Reading: environment  Out and about  Customer service and transactions  Personal information  Future plans, education and work

For ordinary schoolteachers of Chinese Language in Hong Kong who are trained to teach the subject to L1 students, preparing NCS students for GCSE and IGCSE requires almost another set of subject expertise. Among other professional knowledge, teachers of Chinese have to proficient also in English to fulfil the duty as both GCSE and IGCSE exams have sections which require or allow students to answer in English

and teachers have to administer the school-based assessments for individual students (Leung & Tsui, 2011). To be biliterate in Chinese and English at the working level might not be simple for teachers of L1 Chinese as for most of the time, teachers do not need to use English as a working language in teaching Chinese Language.

8. An urgent need for a broader knowledge base of Chinese language teachers

By highlighting the development of Chinese Language curriculum and related assessments in Hong Kong, this paper hopes to reveal an update professional knowledge for becoming a teacher of Chinese in Hong Kong. The analyses of curriculum and assessment documents indicate that teachers "need to know" not only knowledge of teaching Chinese as L1 but also knowledge of teaching Chinese as L2. Obviously, the two knowledge bases do not equate and the transfer or integration of teachers' knowledge should not be taken for granted. Fresh graduates from teacher education programmes are unlikely to be able to cope with the demanding career if they were not aware of and be prepared for the real challenge of being a first language teacher and a second language teacher concurrently, worse, within the same class. The differences in handling L1 and L2 teaching cannot be oversimplified.

Teacher knowledge and how it is learned have been long-standing concerns. In a pioneering study, Elbaz (1983) synthesizes the knowledge a teacher needs at work as practical knowledge, which refers to "all knowledge as integrated by the individual teacher in terms of personal values and beliefs and as oriented to her practical situation" (p.5). More specifically, practical knowledge covers the following five categories: (a) knowledge of self, (b) knowledge of the milieu of teaching, (c) knowledge of subject matter, (d) knowledge of curriculum development, and (e) knowledge of instruction (p.14). Each aspect of practical knowledge will reflect different ways of mediating between thought and action and can be organized into a three-level structure, rule of practice, practical principle and image (the least explicit and most inclusive).

To make explicit the rules and conventions that make meaning or intelligibility possible, i.e., what teachers know, how they act, and what judgements they make in solving teaching dilemmas, Doyle (1990) urges the need for a comprehensive framework of teacher knowledge and suggests three categories of knowledge about teaching - knowledge about practices, content knowledge, and curriculum-enactment knowledge. According to Doyle, in the early 1990s, there has been a substantial increase in attention to the subject-matter knowledge and, in particular, the

pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) of teachers. The importance of deep understandings of subject matter knowledge for professional judgement has been reiterated by Shulman (1986, 1987, 1990) who suggests that subject matter knowledge of a discipline can be organised into substantive and syntactic structures with the former including the ideas, facts, and concepts of the field, as well as their relationships. Whereas syntactic structures involve knowledge of the ways in which the discipline creates and evaluates new knowledge (Wilson et al., 1987).

In an attempt to identify types and structures of subject matter knowledge, Ball and McDiarmid (1989) conclude that teachers' learning of subject matter includes: concepts of subject matter knowledge, sources and outcomes of teachers’ subject-matter learning, and evidence about teachers’ subject-matter preparation. They further point out that teachers learn content from teaching it. They find it not surprising that teachers do not have adequate subject-matter preparation because what they know outside their areas of specialization is probably based on resources from elementary and high school classes (p.442).

Methods courses in teacher training programmes, on the other hand, have traditionally covered the strategies for teaching the subject matter, not the subject per se. While they refer content knowledge to the factual information organizing principles and central concepts of a discipline, they find that English teachers who are uncertain of their own knowledge of grammar try to avoid teaching it whenever possible (Grossman et al.,1989). In other words, teachers' lack of content knowledge affects the style as well as the quality of instruction.

As teachers need to deal with both content and process, to think properly about content knowledge requires one to go beyond knowledge of the facts or concepts of a domain. Focusing on the transition from expert students to novice teachers, the notion of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) suggested by Shulman (1986) distinguishes different types of teacher knowledge (content, pedagogical content and strategic) and forms of knowledge (propositional, case and strategic). According to Shulman, PCK includes: …the most regularly taught topics in one’s subject area, the most useful forms of representation of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstration-in a word, the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others.... It also includes an understanding of what makes the learning of specific topics easy or difficult... (p.9)

To specify the knowledge base of teaching, Shulman (1987) further suggests a few categories, i.e., content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge (e.g., classroom management), curriculum knowledge, such as materials and programs, knowledge of learners and their characteristics, knowledge of educational contexts, knowledge of educational ends, purposes, values, and pedagogical content knowledge. While the wisdom of practice is identified as the major source for the knowledge base of teaching, PCK is regarded as the special amalgam of content and pedagogy that is uniquely the teachers' own special form of professional understanding. In gist, transformation of subject knowledge for the purposes of teaching is at the heart of pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers' wisdom of practice is generated from actively involved in the study and criticism of their own practice and the professional development of teachers at work is an ongoing process.

In the light of the discussions on teacher knowledge, teachers (both pre-and in-service) of Chinese Language in Hong Kong are facing a severe challenge of having to teach the Chinese subject as L1 and L2 at the same time. In terms of Shulman's notion of pedagogical content knowledge, Hong Kong teachers require two sets of PCK in handling the teaching of the Chinese Language to different ethnic groups of students. Although there are overlapping in the "substantive structures" of the subject content knowledge, the "syntactic structures" of L1 and L2 teaching varied. The differences in teaching conditions and learning outcomes should not be underestimated. To conclude, the commonalities and the differences in a broader knowledge base for Chinese Language teachers in Hong Kong is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5 A complex knowledge base for Chinese Language teachers in Hong Kong

Figure 5 conceptualises the characteristics of a broader knowledge base required of current Chinese teachers in Hong Kong. The common components shared by L1 and L2 teaching are in blue, whereas the components for L1 teaching is in orange and those for L2 teaching is in green. Understandably, teachers of L1 and L2 Chinese may share general pedagogical knowledge (e.g., classroom management) but the application contexts constituted by the other sources of knowledge vary. Similarly, apart from the basic content knowledge of the Chinese language system, the breadth and depth of L1 and L2 teaching and learning can hardly be the same. Most importantly, the cultural background of and learning support for the two groups of learners differ and teachers in fact have to follow different "curriculum and assessment" guidelines. Coming from various South-Asia countries, L2 students of Chinese speak Indonesian, Tagalog, Hindi, Urdu, Nepali etc., which are alphabetic languages different from Chinese. Teachers also need additional knowledge of the learners and their home language for adopting teaching strategies different from teaching L1 Chinese. In this connection, the respective PCK shaped by other practical knowledge in teachers are of different nature. To an extreme, some teachers may need to do two jobs at the same time if there were only a few NCS students in an L1 Chinese lesson.

It is true that the Hong Kong government is increasing the support for NCS students to learn Chinese language. From a teacher educator's perspective, the author is concerned whether teachers are ready to do a good job for quality learning in students. Without a clearer differentiation between teaching Chinese as L1 and L2, the quality

18 of Chinese language teacher education and Chinese language education in general might be traded off. The comparisons in this paper provide sound evidence for calling for systematic and comprehensive training for teachers to cope with the changing needs in teaching, if there would not be a separate Chinese Language curriculum for L2 learners in Hong Kong.

Reference

Ball, D. L., & McDiarmid, G. W. (1989). The subject matter preparation of teachers. In W.R. Houseton (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp.437-449). New York: Macmillan. Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of resource on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan. Cummins, J.(1981). Bilingualism and minority-language children. Toronto: Ontario. Cummins, J.(2000). Beyond adversarial discourse: Searching for common ground in the education of bilingual students. In C. J. Ovando, & P. Mclaren (Ed.), The politics of multiculturalism and bilingual education (pp. 126-147). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Curriculum Development Council (1990a). An outline of the primary school (P.1-P.6), Chinese subject curriculum. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Curriculum Development Council. Curriculum Development Council (1990b). An outline of the secondary school (S.1-S.5) Chinese subject curriculum. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Curriculum Development Council. Curriculum Development Council (1991). An outline of the secondary school (advanced supplementary level) Chinese and culture subject curriculum. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Curriculum Development Council. Curriculum Development Council (2001). Chinese Language curriculum guide (Junior secondary and senior secondary). Hong Kong: Education Bureau. Curriculum Development Council (2004). Chinese Language curriculum guide (Primary1-6). Hong Kong: Education Bureau. Curriculum Development Council (2008). Supplementary guide to the Chinese Language Curriculum for non-Chinese speaking students (Main Text). Hong Kong: Education Bureau. Curriculum Development Council (2014). A second language framework of the Chinese Language curriculum. (In Chinese).Hong Kong: Education Bureau. Doyle, W. (1990). Themes in teacher education research. In W. R. Houston & M. Haberman & J. P. Sikula & Association of Teacher Educators (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 3-24). New York/London: Macmillan/Collier Macmillan. Economic Daily News (16 April 2014). 12 prescribed classical texts for inclusion in the Chinese Language curriculum. Education Commission (1995). Education Commission Report No.6. Hong Kong: Education Commission. 20

Fok, P.K., & Wong, H. W. (2010). The content and rationale of Chinese Language curriculum decision: Understanding policymakers’ perspective. Education Journal, 37(1-2), 1-28. Grossman, P. L., Wilson, S. M., & Shulman, L. S. (1989). Teachers of substance: Subject matter knowledge for teaching. In M. C. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp. 23-36). Oxford: Pergamon Press. HKEA (1984, 1994). Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination Annual Report. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Examination Authority. HKEAA (2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011). Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination Annual Report. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Examination and Assessment Authority. HKEAA (2010). New senior secondary school core subject: Chinese Language --exam paper sample. http://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/tc/hkdse/hkdse_subj.html?A1&1&1_3 HKEAA (2014). New senior secondary school core subject: Chinese Language--exam paper sample. Prescribed classic article exam paper sample (for 2018 DSC exam). http://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/tc/hkdse/hkdse_subj.html?A1&1&1_3 HKWGLP (1994). Report of the Working Group on Language Proficiency. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Working Group on Language Proficiency, Education Commission. Hong Kong Language Studies (2014). Data bank of schools teaching Chinese in Putonghua, https://sites.google.com/site/hklangstudies/ HTML5 Word Cloud, http://timdream.org/wordcloud/# Ki, W. W. (2014). In consideration of developing a Chinese as a second language curriculum in Hong Kong. In W. F. Wong & H. L. Yip (Eds.), Matza: An preliminary investigation into the teaching and learning of Chinese as a second language (pp. 148-167). (In Chinese). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Unison. Lee, H. M. (1991). The problem between language and literature. In H. M. Lee & K. C. Ho (Eds.), Where to go? Issues related to language teaching, design, management and implementation of language teacher education curriculum: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference held by the Institute of Language in Education (pp. 80-90). (In Chinese). Hong Kong: Government Printer. Lee, H. M. (1997). Mother tongue, medium of instruction and some related issues. In H. M. Lee (Ed.), The teaching of Chinese: Present and development (pp. 262-285). (In Chinese). Hong Kong: Xuesi.

Leung, Y. W., & Tsui, S.K. (2011). A comparison of GCSE Chinese and IGCSE Chinese. (In Chinese). UK Association for the promotion of Chinese Education. http://www.ukapce.org.uk/GCSE_Garden/Articles/2011_GCSEandIGCSE_trad.pdf Li, J.S. (1995). Teaching Chinese in the nineties. In H.K. T. Federation (Ed.), Essays on the teaching and learning of Chinese language (pp.111-119). (In Chinese). Hong Kong: Joint Publishing. Pang, D. X. (1984). Several existing issues in the teaching of secondary Chinese in Hong Kong). In P. K. Wong (Ed.), Papers on Secondary Chinese teaching: Revised edition (pp. 31-39). (In Chinese). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Association for Chinese Language. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22. Shulman, L. S. (1990). Paradigms and programs (Vol. 1). New York: Macmillan. So, M. J. (1983a). The correct recognition of teaching and learning Chinese - A speech to students at the Pui Ching Middle School, Discussions of the Sujia Studio (pp. 537-542). (In Chinese). Hong Kong. So, M. J. (1983b). My opinion about the principles of Chinese education, Discussions of the Sujia Studio (pp. 487-492). (In Chinese). Hong Kong. Standing Committee on Language and Research (2003). Action Plan to Raise Language Standards in Hong Kong – Final Report of Language Education Review. http://www.language-education.com/eng/doc/Download_ActionPlan- Final_Report%28E%29.pdf Tang, S. F. (2002). The evolution of school system in Hong Kong: A cultural perspective. Unpublished EdD dissertation, East China Normal University, Shanghai. Tse, S. K., Chan, W. S., Ho, W. K., Law, N., Lee, T., Shek, C., Wong, C., & Yu, F. Y. (1995). Chinese language education for the 21st century: A Hong Kong perspective. Hong Kong: Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong. Wang. L. (1984). Wang Li's talk on language education and culture) In P.K. Wong (Ed.), Papers on Secondary Chinese teaching: Revised edition) (pp.7-12). (In Chinese).Hong Kong: Hong Kong Association for Chinese Language. Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, A. E. (1987). '150 Different ways' of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers' thinking (pp. 104-124). London: Cassell.

Ye, S. T. (1984). Two basic concepts of Chinese teaching. In P. K. Wong (Ed.), Papers on Secondary Chinese teaching (revised ed., pp. 3-6). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Association for Chinese Language. Yu, F. Y. (1987). Tradition and change in Chinese education. In R. Lord & H. N. L. Cheng (Eds.), Language Education in Hong Kong (pp. 219-230). Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press. Zhang, S. S. (1993). The pre-service training and post-service development of Chinese language teachers. Institute of Language in Education Journal, 10, 43-45. Zhang, Z. G. (1994). The past, present and future of language teaching). In W. Z. Zhuang (Ed.), A collection of Zhang Zhi Gong's papers on language education (pp. 135-147). Beijing: Renmin Jiaoyu Chubanshe. Zhang, Z. G. (1999). A preliminary study of traditional language teaching and learning (3rd ed.). Hong Kong: Joint Publishing.