Definition of bilingual education and models in the Chinese context
Cummins (2009) defines bilingual education as “an organized and planned program that uses two (or more) languages of instruction. The central defining feature of bilingual programs is that the languages are used to teach subject matter content rather than just the languages themselves” (p.161). Garcia (2009) conceptualizes bilingual education in the context of social interactions among teachers and learners in school. Bilingual education is “any instance in which children’s and teachers’ communicative practices in school normally include the use of multiple multilingual practices that maximize learning efficacy and communication; and that, in so doing, foster and develop tolerance towards linguistic differences, as well as appreciation of languages and bilingual proficiency” (Garcia, 2009, p. 14). As such, bilingual education is a type of education that goes beyond just learning another language in addition to learners’ home language. It can potentially bring about good personal, social, and academic results that monolingual education might not be able to help learners fully achieve.
In a very general sense, there are two different bilingual program models: subtractive and additive bilingual models (Garcia, 2009). Subtractive bilingual program model uses the learners’ home or first language as the initial instructional language before transitioning to the second language completely (Baird, 2015). As a result, the learners’ home language could be devalued. There are variations under this model. Learners may build basic literacy and content knowledge in the first language for a period of time before the teaching and learning transitions to English rapidly. Learners could be separated from English speaking peers or incorporated into mainstream classes. The initial literacy and content knowledge building time could be long or short depending on the progress of this stage and the proportion between the two languages varies too.
Additive bilingual program model aims to educate students to be competent in two languages (Baird, 2015). There are variations under this model too. The most common type in the U.S. is two-way immersion programs in which students usually spend approximately half of their time in each language. Ideally, there are also roughly equal number of students in this kind of two-way immersion programs (Baird, 2015). In the context of Chinese-English bilingual schools, the two-way immersion program is unlikely because of a homogenous student population. A good additive model of bilingual education is obviously desired in Chinese-English bilingual schools as enabling students to develop oral and literate competence in both Chinese and English should be the purpose. It is arguable that English now is the de facto world language owing to the popularity of English culture and the ubiquity of internet access. In the reality of Chinese bilingual schools, however, a risk of downplaying the development of Chinese language may prevail due to an increasing proportion of English instructions from lower grades to higher grades. Especially in high school where teaching and learning is mainly carried out in English, the strategies to maintain and further develop Chinese oral and literate competence should be carefully planned if true benefits of a bilingual education are expected to occur. After all, getting into an English-medium university is not the end of Chinese-English bilingual students’ journey of learning. Regardless of returning home or staying in English speaking countries, mostly likely these bilingual students will study, work, and live in a bilingual if not multilingual world which demands the competence in both languages and other skills learned through a true bilingual education. A poorly designed subtractive model of bilingual education could compromise bilinguals’ prosperity and well-being in the future.
When a school makes decision in terms of its bilingual education program design, it is suggested that many factors should be considered. Perhaps it is more helpful for a school to deliberate on local factors than adopt an established model or this sort, as any model that works elsewhere could differ in many aspects linking to the particular school context. A school should consider the relationship between the home language and school language, curricular organization of languages such as medium of teaching and learning and distribution of languages in the curriculum, the linguistic character of the school community and the country where the school is located, and the status and differences of languages (Garcia, 2009). Baker (2000) also advises considering a few other areas when a school design its bilingual language policy, including the educational goals of the school, the characteristics of the students, the suitability of the policy for different grade levels, different layers and dimensions of the school curriculum, and language exposure outside the school. School leaders and teachers in a bilingual school should engage in careful analysis and deep conversation about the linguistic, pedagogical, sociocultural, as well as human resource factors of the schools before a bilingual program design or a bilingual policy is put into practical test. A bilingual education should be discussed as an education rather than merely language learning opportunities. The impact or consequence of an education is much larger than what a language training program does to students.
Shanghai experimented with bilingual education in the first decade of the 21st century, although the leaders of the experiment defined it as bilingual teaching. The experiment continued for about one decade during which many schools in Shanghai and in other Chinese cities joined the pedagogical trend and some insightful research embedded in practice were produced too. Bilingual teaching in Shanghai public schools is regarded as an extension of English teaching and learning (Zhu, 2003) and as the main venue via which bilingual education in a school is implemented (Li, Zhang, Wu, et al, 2012). Zhu (2003), who at that time was the deputy director of the Bilingual Teaching Research Committee under the Shanghai Education Commission, makes the stance of the Shanghai experiment very clear. He argues that Shanghai’s context differs than that of other multicultural countries such as the USA and Canada where bilingual programs prevail. Therefore, the purpose of the experiment should be confined to improving students’ English competence. Without any modification of language policy in Chinese education, the experiment simply extends English teaching and learning from the English subject to more subject areas in order to “broaden channels for English learning, improve the environment of language acquisition, cultivate thinking skills in English” (Zhu, 2003, p. 55; Zhu, 2008a; Zhu, 2008b). Following the Shanghai experiment, other jurisdictions in China also launched their policies or experiments in relation to bilingual education. Similar to Shanghai, majority of the practices and research focus on bilingual teaching (Long, 2007). This bilingual teaching experiment seemed to lose its steam during the second decade of the 21st century. Instead, a new wave of international curricula schools in both public and private sectors catering for Chinese students who opted for an English-medium education quickly emerged and dwarfed the development bilingual schools.
More recently, however, it seems that there is a new surge of self-declared bilingual schools in China with more and more schools even having the term Bilingual (Shuang Yu) or Foreign Language (Wai Guo Yu) in their school names. Probably, this phenomenon is jointly caused by both growing societal demands for a true bilingual education and a reiterated Chinese education policy that requires compulsory education (Grade 1-9) schools must use national curriculum to teach Chinese nationals. Therefore, the internationalization of school education is nudged into an era in which English medium education, which is desired by many parents who want to send their children overseas, must be combined with the compulsory Chinese national curriculum. In this context of internationalized education, which is a current buzz term in both school education and higher education sectors in China, Li et al. (2012) argue for the need of bilingual education instead of mere bilingual teaching in classroom. They suggest that, if bilingual education is the legitimate goal, a school can create bilingual teaching and learning environment in the school, initiate international partnerships, and organize rich bilingual extra-curricular activities. While bilingual education in Chinese public schools was only confined to bilingual teaching to avoid policy and ideology violations, now a great number of schools in the private sector build their education models by referring to theories or practices pertaining to bilingual education. An internet or social media search can generate many findings that show bilingual education or international education practices featuring English and Chinese teaching in schools across China. The buzz term “East-West Integrated Education” (中西融合教育), which is commonly used by those private bilingual schools, obviously manifests the pursuit of a bilingual education that goes beyond mere teaching and learning in classroom to a design of the whole school education and its purposes. In sum, the reasons that pushed these private schools into a bilingual education model are complicated by many factors including market demand, Chinese education policies, and a realization and revitalization of strengths of Chinese education and culture, etc. Focusing on effectiveness and impact of bilingual education in these schools, a serious consideration and discussion about bilingual models and educational goals for Chinese students is urgently needed.
Language allocation in bilingual programs
A bilingual school must implement a clear language allocation plan to help students develop advanced abilities in both languages (Baker, 2000). The two languages can be integrated or separated in classrooms depending on different purposes of teaching and learning. The two languages may be integrated because the learners have mixed linguistic background or the school has a specific language integration policy, for instance teaching mathematics using two languages in classroom. Language separation has its reasons and advantages too. For instance, a minority language or lessons in the minority language are taught separately in order to retain and development students’ competence in this particular language. It is certainly not desired that unplanned mixing leads to compromising learners’ first language development. Also, research suggests that young children might benefit more from “one person, one language” separation of languages than a mixed approach. For high school students, however, a more concurrent use of languages may enhance understanding and improve cognitive development (Baker, 2000).
There are different models of language allocation in schools, such as half-half model or the model with an initial larger proportion focusing on the home language followed by a gradually increasing proportion of the second language. Cummings (2009) observes that the research does not favor any particular model of language allocation over other models. However, he goes on to suggest that at least half of the instructional time should be allocated to the second language, ideally throughout the primary school grades in order to develop competence in both languages. In terms of initial reading instruction, the research is not in favor of a particular arrangement either. Cummings (2009) concludes that either home language or second language or both can be used to develop learners’ initial literacy skills. He suggests the school can make the choice depending on its own situation.
In Chinese-English bilingual schools, if a real bilingual education is to happen, some subjects will be taught in Chinese according to the compulsory education requirements, some others might be taught bilingually or solely in English without compromising national requirements, and English language and some school-developed courses might be taught in English only. For those subjects or themes that can be taught in either English or bilingually, the school needs to decide a language integration or separation model that suits students’ needs and targeted purposes of bilingual education. Baker’s (2000) discussion on language separation is helpful. He suggests eight dimensions in relation to the consideration of language separation in bilingual schools, including curricular areas, teachers, time, place, languages as media of learning, learning materials, function of language, and students’ choice.
Both language integration and separation are evident in practices in Chinese-English bilingual schools. One bilingual school in Shanghai shared how they allocated languages (Zhou, 2019). With the so-called ‘Pioneer Curriculum’ in the school, it strives to prepare students with competences in both languages without compromising students’ Chinese learning and cultural identity. Perhaps, the most impressive goal of the Pioneer Curriculum is that it promises to prepare students for their future study either in English medium international curricula or the Chinese high school national curriculum. In the delivery of the Curriculum, the two languages are either separated or integrated depending on the nature of the subject. There is one bilingual period weekly for math taught by one Chinese teacher and one English speaking teacher in addition to other Chinese math classes, whereas Chinese literature is taught by Chinese speaking teachers only. There are three types of English classes, including English classes led by Chinese English teachers focusing on grammar and vocabulary, immersion English classes taught by English native speakers focusing on reading, writing, and oral abilities, and English classes collaboratively taught by one Chinese and one English native speaker, in which the Chinese teacher provides additional support when students learn the second language. Chinese and English are evenly allocated in the reading tree program of the Curriculum so that the literacy in both languages can be developed at the same time. For Humanities, Arts, Music, and Physical Education courses, a more integrated model is adopted for the Pioneer Curriculum. All of these courses are collaboratively taught by one Chinese and one English speaking teacher with both teachers being in the classroom. The purpose of this arrangement is to provide students with a bilingually immersed learning environment. It is likely that the English-speaking teacher in Arts, Music, and PE classes take the leading role while the Chinese teacher play a supporting role. In terms Humanities, the Chinese teacher focuses on designing bilingual content in relation to students’ cultural background while the English-speaking teacher implements the content by applying thematic or project-based approaches. Although the effectiveness of the school’s language allocation is to be further investigated, this example gives some ideas about how suggestions from the research can be implemented in Chinese-English bilingual schools.
Comments