926510

research-article20202020
SGOXXX10.1177/2158244020926510SAGE OpenTong et al.

Review Article

SAGE Open

A Systematic Literature Synthesis of

April-June 2020: 1­–23
© The Author(s) 2020
DOI: 10.1177/2158244020926510
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020926510

19 Years of Bilingual Education in Chinese journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo

Higher Education: Where Does the

Academic Discourse Stand?

Fuhui Tong1 , Zhuoying Wang1, Yue Min2, and Shifang Tang1

Abstract
In this three-phase, systematic review, we comprehensively synthesize research on bilingual education in higher education
institutions over a 19-year period, starting from the initiation of this top-down educational provision across mainland China.
In this context, although English has no official status, it is highly regarded and widely used as a medium of instruction
alongside Chinese. We critically examine studies (n = 1,632) published in both English and Chinese outlets on academic
discourse that deliberate on what was studied, how it was studied, and what the publication trend was. We argue that scholarly
attention should continue to revolve around the benefits of bilingual programs, due to the lack of rigorous empirical evidence
that attests to the effectiveness of bilingual education in Chinese higher education. Our review echoes similar research
syntheses conducted in Europe and worldwide and is, therefore, expected to shed light on the policy implications and the
practice of bilingual education in higher education on a global scale. Recommendations for future research are provided.

Keywords
Chinese–English bilingual education, higher education, systematic literature review, educational provision, bilingual model,
publication language bias

Last year, that is, 2019, marks the 19th year since the Ministry
of Education (MOE, 2001) officially mandated the imple-
mentation of bilingual education in higher education institu-
tions across the People’s Republic of China. Following this
initiative, institutions of higher education began to offer
courses in both Chinese and another foreign language (pre-
dominantly English), particularly in fields that are directly
related to national development and internationalization
(e.g., biotechnology, information technology, finance, and
law; MOE, 2001). Since then, bilingual education in main-
land China has received both favorable attention and critical
scrutiny (X. Gao & Ren, 2019). Proponents endorse this edu-
cational policy on the basis that it could help to prepare a
new generation that is bilingual, bicultural, and biliterate in
various disciplines. Proponents also suggest that bilingual-
ism will make Chinese graduates more competitive in the
global market, which is expected to support an increase in
national power (e.g., Y. Feng, 2009; D. Zheng & Dai, 2013;
Zhu & Yu, 2010). Critics, however, have presented the com-
pelling argument that access to opportunity and equity
encoded in this educational reform will result in further
divides in China, by accentuating the vertical structure of
society (e.g., G. Hu, 2008; G, Hu et al., 2014).
Despite such controversy, this language provision has
gained popularity and momentum and has made its way into
higher education in China (Y. Feng, 2005) through the subse-
quent government policies that promote it (e.g., MOE, 2005,
2010). According to N. Yang and Zhang (2015), there have
been 150 to 200 different courses taught in Chinese and
English in a handful of highly ranked universities. An elite
university, located in Beijing, offered 200 disciplinary bilin-
gual courses, including some with 100% of the instruction in
English (MOE, 2017).
The evolution and expansion of bilingual courses is a
product of internationalization in which English plays
a crucial role as the lingua franca, resetting the de facto
1
 epartment of Educational Psychology, Center for Research and
D
Development in Dual Language and Literacy Acquisition, Texas A&M
University, College Station, USA
2
Cornerstone Learning Foundation, Palo Alto, CA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Fuhui Tong, Bilingual Education Program, Department of Educational
Psychology, Center for Research and Development in Dual Language
and Literacy Acquisition, Texas A&M University, 407 Harrington Tower,
TAMU 4225, College Station, TX 77843, USA.
Email: fuhuitong@tamu.edu

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 SAGE Open
boundary of many English-speaking countries. Consequently,
there is a growing interest in the medium of instruction
(MOI) in higher education, particularly in regions where
English either coexists with another official language (e.g.,
South Africa) or has no official status (even if it is widely
used and highly regarded, such as in China and Japan; Baker
& Wright, 2017; X. Gao & Wang, 2017; Palfreyman & van
der Walt, 2017; Van der Walt, 2017; J. Zhao & Dixon, 2017).
However, in China, the spread of bilingual education has out-
grown the existing empirical research on the topic (such as
its feasibility and effectiveness; G. Hu et al., 2014; Tong &
Tang, 2017). Comprehensive literature reviews have been
conducted to address the effectiveness of bilingual education
in the United States (see a narrative review by Rossell and
Baker [1996]; a best-evidence synthesis by Slavin and
Cheung (2005); and a meta-analysis by Willig (1985),
Greene (1997), Rolstad et al. (2005)), Europe (see a meta-
analysis by Reljić et al., 2015), Australia (see a systematic
review by Silburn et al., 2011), and elsewhere (see a system-
atic review by Macaro et al., 2018). Although the body of
English-medium instruction (EMI) is largely dominated by
work conducted in Europe and Asia, only three articles dis-
cuss higher education in mainland China (see Macaro et al.,
2018). There is little else available on bilingual education in
a Chinese, postsecondary context, perhaps because such an
approach is relatively uncommon and difficult to identify in
the region (e.g., literature published in non-English lan-
guages, as acknowledged by Macaro et al. (2018) and Reljić
et al. (2015)).
As such, the present study arises from the need to address
the aforementioned publication bias to contribute to our
understanding of the complex nature of bilingual education
in mainland China. This article aims to comprehensively and
systematically review research that has been conducted over
the past 19 years and published either in English or Chinese
outlets on the subject of bilingual education (with both
Chinese and English as the MOI) in Chinese higher educa-
tion. To this end, we synthesized the academic discourse of
what was studied, how it was studied, and what the publica-
tion trend was in the academic community, since this top-
down language and educational provision came into effect.
A Terminological Choice: Bilingual Education
versus EMI
It is worth mentioning that this research uses the term bilin-
gual education instead of EMI, content and language inte-
grated learning (CLIL), and content-based instruction (CBI)
for the following reasons. First, our choice is aligned with
the wording that appeared in the headings of Chinese gov-
ernment policy documents (i.e., shuang-yu, which translates
to bi-lingual; see MOE, 2001, 2005). Although the 2001 gov-
ernment policy documents stated that the use of English as
the MOI is encouraged, statements in 2005 and 2007 were
titled “shuangyu jiaoxue” (bi-lingual instruction). Research
in English-speaking countries has demonstrated that 100%
English instruction may not yield the highest gain for stu-
dents whose native language is not English (Lindholm-Leary,
2016; Tong et al., 2008). Furthermore, this nationwide edu-
cational undertaking intends to solidify knowledge in both
languages, as well as enhance college students’ English lan-
guage proficiency, which coincides with the commonly held
goal of bilingual education in English-speaking environ-
ments (Y. Feng, 2005; Genesee, 1999). Although differences
in ideology, as well as in sociopolitical and sociocultural
implications, exist between China and other English-
speaking countries, a more holistic view of bilingualism was
recently conveyed in Baker and Wright’s work (2017), which
found that two thirds of the world population is bilingual to
some degree; their work conceives of language ability as a
spectrum, with some falling into the category of incipient
bilingual (Diebold, 1964) and others falling into the category
of maximum bilingual (Bloomfield, 1933). Baker and Wright
embraced the concept of selective bilingualism, a character-
istic of learners from the language majority group, who
choose to learn a second language without losing their
mother tongue. Such language choice is typical in the
Chinese context. On account of the many caveats that exist in
language learning, we argue that bilingual education is a
broad term that subsumes various forms.
Similar to the use of CLIL, a fast-developing phenome-
non in Europe (Lasagabaster, 2015) that has already spread
to South America (Siqueira et al., 2018), and CBI, popular in
North America (Tedick & Cammarata, 2012), the term EMI
more frequently refers to the language used in teaching
within Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East (Macaro
et al., 2018; J. Zhao & Dixon, 2017). Such linguistic and
policy choices reflect the elite status of the English language,
as well as the socioeconomic value of being able to speak
English that has been upheld in these regions. Although it
does not preclude the use of learners’ native language (L1) in
practice, it signifies a fondness that downplays the impor-
tance of L1 instruction, which has demonstrated promise for
young immigrants in North America (e.g., Cheung & Slavin,
2012). The fundamental theoretical proposition establishes
that learning a second language (L2) can be facilitated when
command of a native language reaches a certain threshold
(see Cummins’ Common Underlying Proficiency [CUP] the-
ory, 1976; 1979), at which point the linguistic and content
knowledge in L1 can be transferred to an L2 (see Krashen’s
second-language acquisition hypotheses, 1985). For Chinese
students, such a preference may infer linguistic imperialism,
discount the benefit of material in their L1, and make it even
more challenging to reconcile the tension between the cul-
ture and value embedded in the Chinese language versus in a
foreign language such as English (Kirkpatrick, 2014; J. Liu
& Fang, 2017), thereby, defeating the purpose. Finally, these
terminologies reflect an approach or means of implementing
bilingual programs, whereas bilingual education points to a
clear goal of bilingualism and biliteracy.
Tong et al. 3

Table 1.  Research Reviews on Bilingual Education in China.

Year of Language of Database Review Number of
Authors publication publication accessed Journal selection period articles reviewed Grade level Search term

H. Xu 2008 Chinese n/a n/a 2001–2008 n/a Postsecondary n/a

Zhu & Yu 2010 Chinese CNKI n/a 2000–2010 90+ K–16 Bilingual education or
bilingual instruction
D. Zheng & Dai 2013 Chinese CNKI 14 core journals in 2003–2012 23 Postsecondary Bilingual instruction
foreign language
Fan 2014 Chinese CNKI Core journals in 2001–2013 90 Postsecondary Bilingual instruction
higher education and higher
or foreign education
language
G. Hu 2008 English CNKI n/a 2001–2005 102 K–12 English language
teaching, bilingual
education, and
bilingual instruction
F. G. Fang 2018 English n/a n/a n/a 7 Postsecondary n/a

CNKI = China National Knowledge Infrastructure.

Our choice of terminology for bilingual education is also
congruent with the way it is defined by researchers. Among
many conceptualizations and theorizations of bilingual edu-
cation (Baker & Wright, 2017), we adopt the delineation of
Lasagabaster’s (2015) bilingualism and Palfreyman and van
der Walt’s (2017) biliteracy in our study. In addition, we
regard bilingual education as the use of two languages as a
shared MOI in the academic context of higher education,
with the objective of promoting learners’ communicative
competence (both orally and in written form) in discipline-
specific knowledge.
Models of Bilingual Education in Chinese Higher
Education
A traditional view of bilingual education models in China
can be summarized in three ways: immersion, mainte-
nance, and maintenance or infiltration (H. Xu, 2008). In
the immersion program, which was adopted from the
Canadian model, English is acquired in the process of con-
tent learning. Instructors use English as the instructional
language most of the time, and textbooks and other learn-
ing materials are in English. In the transitional program,
Chinese is used as the primary MOI at the initial stage and
gradually transitions to English as its language of instruc-
tion. In a maintenance or infiltrative program, Chinese
serves as the MOI for the majority of the time (e.g., 90%),
but textbooks and materials are in English. Although the
forms of bilingual education can vary significantly across
different contexts, there is a general consensus that the
ultimate goal of bilingual education in the Chinese context
is to equip bilingual people with specialized knowledge in
academic fields, so that they can use English to communi-
cate with English-speaking specialists and professionals as
needed (Y. Feng, 2005).
Reviews on Chinese–English Bilingual Education
in Mainland China
After an extensive literature search, we identified six reviews
of Chinese–English bilingual education in mainland China
(see Table 1). Four (Fan, 2014; H. Xu, 2008; D. Zheng &
Dai, 2013; Zhu & Yu, 2010) were published in Chinese out-
lets, and two (i.e., F. G. Fang, 2018; G. Hu, 2008) were pub-
lished in English outlets. Five major themes can be drawn
from this body of literature to inform our own review. First,
G. Hu (2008) argued that the craze of bilingual education has
perpetuated the inequalities of accessing education in
Chinese society. His argument was reiterated by D. Zheng
and Dai (2013) as most English–Chinese bilingual courses
are implemented in top-tier universities. According to the
official definition, there are 151 key universities included in
“211” or “985” projects, both of which are initiatives of the
Chinese government to promote higher education and world-
class universities in the 21st century (MOE, 2008, 2011,
2013). G. Hu and his colleagues (2014) claimed that highly
qualified bilingual instructors, with strong communicative
English proficiency and overseas experience, were more
likely to be attracted by elite universities that offered com-
petitive recruitment packages with the privilege of central/
local funding support, which is a significant contributor to
disparities in economic, cultural, and social capitals.
Second, among the six reviews, only one (i.e., F. G.
Fang, 2018) examined seven studies published in English.
Drawing from these seven articles, Fang argued that further
assessment of the benefits and cost of bilingual courses in
Chinese higher education was essential. He also called for
a contextualized policy that considers the landscape of mul-
tilingualism in China and provides language support and
guidance to both students and instructors so as to evaluate
the impact of bilingual education on students’ English lan-
guage and disciplinary learning, and to unpack the future
4 SAGE Open
development of bilingual education in Chinese higher edu-
cation. It is apparent that on this particular topic, more arti-
cles are published in Chinese than English. This observation
is also confirmed by two reviews of bilingual education in
Europe (Reljić et al., 2015) and worldwide (Macaro et al.,
2018), in which the authors acknowledged not only the
existence of a large number of studies written in Chinese
and other non-English languages, but also a lack of man-
power and resources to review these articles.
Third, there was a reported scarcity of empirical research.
For example, D. Zheng and Dai (2013) explained that from
23 articles published between 2003 and 2012, only 17%
were empirical, and only one was an experimental study
and one a classroom observation. The percentage of data-
driven research was even smaller in Fan’s (2014) count
(i.e., 9%; n = 8), in which students’ attitudes toward bilin-
gual education, implementation of bilingual education
models, students’ command of English for academic pur-
poses (EAPs), bilingual instructors’ code-switching, and
students’ self-efficacy were studied. According to these
authors, despite the wide-spread educational practices and
the considerable body of theoretical investigation from
diverse perspectives, many studies focus on duplicate top-
ics that do not enrich the basis of knowledge.
Fourth, except for F. G. Fang (2018), the other five
reviews discussed various models of bilingual education
and students’ attitudes and perceptions toward the focal
program related to students’ English proficiency and bilin-
gual instructors’ qualification. Furthermore, four Chinese
articles, while highlighting challenges in research and prac-
tice, were unequivocally positioned in a supportive stance
because bilingual education in the Chinese context is tran-
sitioning from a pedagogical/curricular alternative to a
policy imposition. They called for an ongoing dialogue
between English teaching at colleges and bilingual instruc-
tion, as well as interdisciplinary collaboration among
research experts, English instructors, and content special-
ists so as to improve the quality of bilingual education and
its ability to support learning (Fan, 2014; H. Xu, 2008; D.
Zheng & Dai, 2013; Zhu & Yu, 2010).
Finally, Zhu and Yu (2010) highlighted that a lack of
breadth and depth of bilingual education research has pre-
sented more problems than solutions. They pointed to the
urgent need for scientific investigation through comparative
approaches and repeated measure design with advanced sta-
tistical analyses that can generate rigorous evidence on the
practice of bilingual education. Similarly, G. Hu’s (2008)
narrative review scrutinizes K–12 bilingual education in
China. He questioned the methodological rigor of program
evaluations that were filled with only favorable findings. An
imperative recommendation for future research is to attend to
students’ affective domains, such as motivation, interest,
learning anxiety, behavior, and efficacy, as part of the evalu-
ation system (D. Zheng & Dai, 2013).
The Present Study
However, none of the aforementioned reviews are compre-
hensive in the breadth of the coverage period, types of jour-
nals, themes, and the language of publication. For example,
H. Xu (2008), G. Hu (2008), D. Zheng and Dai (2013), and
Fan (2014) limited their search to core periodicals in either
higher education or foreign language education and, there-
fore, excluded discipline-specific journals where a larger
number of relevant articles exist. G. Hu (2008) and Zhu and
Yu (2010) targeted either earlier phases of education (K–12)
or K–16 without an emphasis on higher education, where it
is most responsive to MOE policies and where the operation
of bilingual courses is an obligation rather than a choice.
Another limitation of earlier reviews is the small number of
articles (i.e., n = 7 in F. G. Fang, 2018; n = 23 in D. Zheng
& Dai, 2013, within a 10-year span) or lack of information
(i.e., H. Xu, 2008) that might lead to a biased or ungrounded
conclusion on the characteristics of scholarly investigation.
Equally problematic was the absence of articulating research
questions, conceptual frameworks, screening and sifting pro-
cesses, and a formulation of inclusion/exclusion criteria, all
of which are typical, best practices in conducting systematic
literature reviews (Siddaway et al., 2019). With the excep-
tion of G. Hu (2008), the other reviews failed to engage in a
substantial discussion, which is likely due to constraints on
the length of articles that are normally accepted in Chinese
periodicals. The only English review of published studies in
mainland China (i.e., F. G. Fang, 2018) failed to specify the
sources identified for the search. Finally, to our limited
knowledge, no previous literature review has been conducted
to systematically and comprehensively scrutinize the aca-
demic discourse and new developments of Chinese–English
bilingual education in postsecondary schools in mainland
China (extending from databases in both languages to avoid-
ing the language and availability bias that could occur in
research synthesis; Borenstein et al., 2009). Given the inter-
nationalization of higher education in China, such a system-
atic synthesis “can promote dialogue between the East and
the West” (H. Guo et al., 2018, p. 13).
In this study, to address the above issue of publication bias,
we synthesize research studies examining bilingual education
in postsecondary education in mainland China over the past
19 years (2001–2019), through a systematic review of “the
research literature using systematic and explicit accountable
methods” (Gough et al., 2012, p. 261). We follow the major
themes outlined in existing reviews, by considering what the
publication trend was, what was studied, and how it was stud-
ied. By doing so, we present a historic, impartial, and infor-
mative account of how the academic trajectory has advanced
in terms of the challenges and promises of bilingual education
in Chinese colleges and universities. This review intends to
shed light on the policies and practices of this educational
provision in the global community.
Tong et al. 5
Approach for Systematic Synthesis
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
In this article, we employed a multiphase systematic approach
to analyze data collected through a search of two sets of data-
bases and other online sources, to comprehensively cover arti-
cles published in both English and Chinese. We adopted and
adapted a process described by H. Cooper (2009) for conduct-
ing a systematic review and leveraged the characteristics of that
process that were most relevant to our purposes. Furthermore,
based on the work of I. D. Cooper and Crum (2013), which
identified the central role of librarians in systematic reviews of
health and medical science, we collaborated with two librarians
that specialized in information management, one that was a
native English speaker and one that was a native Chinese
speaker. With their assistance and expertise, we developed the
terms required for searching appropriate sources and managing
articles, as well as for documenting the search, retrieval, and
archival processes. We believe that such a practice is also ben-
eficial and applicable in educational research, as it ensures that
the pursuit is both exhaustive and reliable. Inclusion criteria for
screening included the following:
1. Public institutions of higher education in mainland
China;
2. Research designated/entitled/described as EMI,
CLIL, CBI, or bilingual education;
3. Research published in peer-reviewed journals and
book chapters;
4. Research in settings where English is used as the lan-
guage of instruction.
In addition to the inclusion criteria, we also applied the fol-
lowing exclusion criteria for screening:
1. Nonaccredited/private institutions of higher educa-
tion or K–12;
2. Research on English language teaching/EAP, or
English for specific purposes (ESP; unless it focused
on content learning);
3. Master’s theses and doctoral dissertations;
4. Other systematic reviews, meta-analyses, meta-syn-
theses, and best-evidence syntheses (unless used for
this article’s literature review and discussion);
5. Research conducted in Hong Kong, Macao, and other
specially administered Chinese-speaking regions
outside of mainland China;
6. Ethnic minority language (Tibetan, Miao, Korean,
etc.) as an MOI.
Rationale of the Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Given the purpose of this study, which is to investigate the aca-
demic discourse of postsecondary Chinese–English bilingual
education, we established the aforementioned inclusion and
exclusion criteria for several reasons. First, we excluded stud-
ies conducted outside mainland China (such as Hong Kong,
Macao, and other special administration regions) because the
educational policies in these areas differ from those of the
mainland. For example, the Basic Law of the Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region (1997) of the People’s Republic
of China clearly states that
On the basis of the previous educational system, the Government
of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall, on its
own, formulate policies on the development and improvement of
education, including policies regarding the educational system
and its administration, the language of instruction, the allocation
of funds, the examination system, the system of academic awards
and the recognition of educational qualifications. (p. 43)
We also included research in settings where the language of
instruction was English, instead of an ethnic minority lan-
guage (such as Tibetan, Miao, Korean, etc.), and excluded
nonaccredited/private institutions of higher education or
K–12.
Moreover, to control for the quality of studies included
in our review, we set “research published in peer-reviewed
journals and book chapters” as the inclusion criterion and
“Master’s theses and doctoral dissertations” as the exclu-
sion criterion because dissertations and theses are defined
as gray literature that have not been published in a tradi-
tional format (Adams et al., 2017). Moreover, such unpub-
lished literature is often hard to locate through common
searching protocol/strategies; therefore, it is more difficult
to archive, analyze, synthesize, and integrate (Scherrer &
Preckel, 2019). We included “research designated/entitled/
described as EMI, CLIL or CBI, bilingual education” and
excluded “research on English language teaching/English
for academic purposes (EAP) or English for specific pur-
poses (ESP) (unless it had a focus on content learning)”
because EMI, CLIL, CBI, and bilingual education share a
common interest in the learning outcomes of both subject
content and language proficiency (Brown & Bradford,
2018), whereas EAP and ESP place emphasis on providing
students with language skills to master subject content and
are more often designed as language courses in ESL/EFL
settings (Airey, 2016; W. Yang, 2016).
Three-Phase Review
Informed by the themes derived from existing reviews, this
review entails three phases. Phase I involves records that met
the inclusion and exclusion criteria; Phase II focuses on
empirical studies; and Phase III is devoted to empirical
research that involves a comparison group, in which we seek
to gain insight into the effectiveness of bilingual education.
Unique to this study is a loosening of the restriction on
empirical research in Phase I, so as to establish an optimal
6 SAGE Open

Figure 1.  PRISMA flowchart on Chinese sources. Note that there were originally 2,413 records retrieved from CNKI, with one
written in English with Chinese abstract. Therefore, we counted this article in the English database.
Note. CNKI = China National Knowledge Infrastructure; PRISMA = Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

boundary, instead of a conservative one, and better under-
stand the actual practice that is prevalent in bilingual pro-
grams that respond to the government initiative. In addition,
Chinese journals in foreign language research and higher
education publish articles that are restricted in length. Such
brief articles do not normally have the space to substantively
elaborate on data exploration, as typical empirical studies do
(Tierney & Kan, 2016). Instead, more common forms of
inquiries include recounts, essays, narratives, argumentative
pieces, and reviews that may also reflect the trend of research
in bilingual education. This manifestation of local scholarly
literacy is oftentimes neglected as a result of international-
ization, and instead redirected toward a Western intellectual
tradition (Alatas, 2006; Mok, 2007).
We present a flowchart in Figures 1 (Chinese sources)
and 2 (English sources) to outline the decision-making pro-
cess following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA; Moher et al., 2010).
A four-member team participated in the review process.
When there was disparity, reviewers discussed it until they
Tong et al. 7

Idenfied through database Addional records idenfied

Idenficaon
search from: ERIC, Academic through Google Scholar and
Search Ulmate, Educaon journal websites
Source, Proquest

1,255 records excluded

non-mainland China and other countries
(n = 581); non-accredited private
instuons (n = 320); monolingual
1,571 records program (n = 84); minority language (e.g.
Mongolian and Chinese bilingual, n = 101);
(a‹er duplicates non-bilingual instrucon (e.g. English
removed) assigned teaching, n= 109); college English majors
Screening

for abstract (n=4); wri‡en in a non-Chinese and non-

screening English language (n = 2) ; non-Chinese-
English bilingual (e.g. Russian and Chinese,
n=45; non peer-review (n=9)

256 records excluded

316 full-text non-mainland China areas (n=139);
arcles assessed non-accredited private instuons (n
for eligibility = 27); minority language (n = 89); not
Eligibility

bilingual instrucon (n=1)

30 non-empirical
Phase I: 60 records studies excluded
included

27 records excluded
Included

Phase II: 30 records survey (n=7); case study

included (n=15); interview, survey,
and observaon (n=5)

Phase III: 3 comparave study in-depth review

Figure 2.  PRISMA flowchart on English sources.

Note. ERIC = Education Resources Information Center; PRISMA = Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

reached a consensus. Agreement was established at 90% on Research Questions

the Chinese database (Kendall’s tau value above .75, p < We began the process of this review with the following ques-
.001) and 95% on the English database (Kendall’s tau value tions, associated with the three phases of review. Each
above .98, p < .001), suggesting high interrater agreement research question is mapped onto the five themes identified in
(Landis & Koch, 1977). the literature review that was presented earlier in this article:
8 SAGE Open
What was the publication trend? (Phase I)
1. What is the type of institution and funding support
where bilingual education is implemented?
2. Is there a difference between Chinese and English
publications?
What was explored? (Phase II)
3. What are students’ attitudes/perceptions toward bilin-
gual education, and what challenges do they
perceive?
4. What form of bilingual education is most popular?
How was it studied? (Phase III)
5. What are the characteristics of the research design in
comparative studies (per H. Cooper, 2009)?
a. Type of assignment
b. Baseline equivalence
c. Threats to internal validity (e.g., confounding, selec-
tion bias)
d. Type, language, and evidence of validity/reliability of
the outcome measure
Chinese Database
The Chinese database was built from a search conducted
from January 2001 to September 2019 using the Periodical
Database in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure
Net (CNKI, zhongzhiwang), which is the largest integrated
knowledge resource system in China. Most of the publica-
tions in this database are in Chinese, but it also includes
articles that are written in English. To capture all the
research that is related to bilingual education in colleges
and universities, two specific criteria for inclusion were
developed to index optimal references. A primary search
based on the combination of controlled terms was con-
ducted, including “bilingual education (shuangyu jiaoyu),”
“bilingual instruction/teaching (shuangyu jiaoxue),” or
“English instruction (yingyu jiaoxue).” The initial search
yielded 2,413 bibliographic entries after being imported
into Rayyan (Elmagarmid et al., 2014) for appropriateness
and duplication. Each article, indexed by searching primary
keywords, was assigned to four raters for a screening on
title, keywords, and abstracts. During this phase, 16 dupli-
cates were removed, and 743 articles met the exclusion cri-
teria, resulting in 1,653 entries for the full-text review.
After the second round of screening, a total of 1,572
Chinese articles and one English article (with a Chinese
abstract) were retained in Phase I of this review. In Phase II,
we further applied an additional criterion to exclude non-
empirical studies, resulting in 271 empirical studies, among
which 31 comparative (experimental/quasi-experimental/
nonexperimental) research studies were eligible for the in-
depth review of Phase III (Figure 1).
English Database
The English database was built using a search from January
2001 through to September 2019 from popular online libraries,
which can yield the most peer-reviewed academic journals in
the social science field, such as Education Resources
Information Center (ERIC), Academic Search Ultimate,
Education Source, and Linguistics and Language Behavior
Abstracts (ProQuest). In addition, we also conducted a search
on Google Scholar, as well as in journals that are most likely to
publish studies on this topic (e.g., International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism). To capture all the
research that is relevant to bilingual education in Chinese
higher education, we conducted our search with all possible
terms, including “China,” “Bilingual Education,” “Bilingual
Program,” “Bilingual Schools/Student/Teachers,” “Bilingual
Instructional Materials,” “Bilingualism,” and “English Medium
Instruction”. To avoid translation ambiguity, we also searched
for “Chinese,” “Mandarin Chinese,” “Bilingual Education
Programs,” “Bilingual Teaching Materials,” “Bilingual
Students,” “English Instruction/Immersion/Learner/Medium,”
and “English Language Learners” as substitutable keywords.
Following the same steps to screen and select articles as
described above for the Chinese database, we retained 60, 30,
and 3 studies in the three phases, respectively (Figure 2).
Results and Discussion
In this section, we report the main results of the synthesis of
Chinese and English publications so as to describe develop-
ments in the research of bilingual education in Chinese
higher education. To clarify the organization of the presented
data, we have merged the discussion with the findings by
presenting them in the order of each review phase: (a) what
the publication trend was (Q1–Q2); (b) what was explored
(Q3–Q4); and (c) how it was studied (Q5).
Phase I: Trends in Publications
In this phase, we address Research Question 1, the types of
universities and funding support, and Research Question 2,
the epistemological disparity between Chinese and English
publications. A total of 1,632 studies, including nonempirical
research, were reviewed and synthesized below.
Types of universities and funding support (Q1).  Among the
647 studies that specified the university where research was
conducted, less than a quarter (18%, n = 116) were ranked
as key universities in the projects of either “211” or “985,”
and the rest were all nonelite universities that offered bilin-
gual courses. A total of 286 studies claimed to receive sup-
port through central/provincial (n = 136, 48%) or local (150,
52%) funds. Figure 3 presents a comparison between key
and non-key universities regarding allocation of funding.
For example, resources from central/provincial government
Tong et al. 9
Figure 3.  Percentage of funding sources by university type.
Figure 4.  Total number of studies by year by language.
were distributed to 31 (51%) key universities and 105 (47%)
non-key universities.
Discussion.  D. Zheng and Dai (2013) reported that most
of the English–Chinese bilingual courses were implemented
in top-tier universities; however, according to our review,
although these courses may have been initiated in more
privileged institutions, they were expanded to lower tiered
institutions with varying quality. As such, bilingual educa-
tion has been embraced across the nation (A. Feng et al.,
2017) and is not exclusively a service that is available to the
elite. Furthermore, our data support the fact that research
on bilingual education in colleges and universities has been
funded by central, provincial, and local resources. In fact, a
slightly larger proportion of financial support was distributed
through local agencies, particularly to non-key universities
that fall outside the top 100 national rankings. The well-
balanced allocation of funds between key universities and
their counterparts reflects the current practice of lower tier
institutions allocating more resources for the implementation
of bilingual programs. Such a trend also stands in contrast
with the general critique that bilingual education perpetuates
inequality in social capitals because only the elite can afford
it (A. Feng et al., 2017; G. Hu, 2008; G. Hu et al., 2014), and
supports Wong’s (2008) recommendation for a decentralized
policy shift in terms of funding. Therefore, we contend that
the issue of equal access to education should not be used
as a reason to oppose bilingual education in Chinese higher
education.
The epistemological disparity between Chinese and English
publications (Q2).  As presented in Figure 4, over the 19-year
span, there has been a growing volume of work being pub-
lished in Chinese (n = 1,572, 95%) compared with in Eng-
lish. We discerned that 83% of these Chinese articles were
nonempirical and included essays, reviews, recounts, and
interpretative, reflective, commentary, or argumentative
pieces. Although much smaller in number (n = 60), half
10 SAGE Open
Figure 5.  Percent of empirical studies by year by language.
Figure 6.  Percent of studies by methodological approach and language.
(50%) of the English articles included at least some data that
were acquired through a quantitative or qualitative epistemo-
logical approach. This trend remains unchanged (Figure 5).
Figure 6 also illustrated that a similar proportion of studies in
both Chinese (n = 31, 2%) and English (n = 3, 5.2%) were
experimental and involved a comparison/reference group,
which will be reviewed in Phase III.
Discussion. The second trend that we observed in the
reviewed publications is the disparity between Chinese and
English articles in terms of quantity, as well as their epis-
temological approach to researching bilingual education.
Kirkpatrick (2011) expressed a concern that the focus on
foreign language as an MOI is inevitably accompanied by
the requirement of disseminating knowledge in that for-
eign language. However, his concern was not supported by
our systematic review; except for a volume of work most
recently published in English (see Zhao & Dixon’s edited
book, 2017, and two studies in a special issue edited by A.
Gao in the International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 2019), the number of English articles does not
accommodate non-Chinese scholars’ increasing interest in,
and demand for, an understanding of bilingual education in
Chinese higher education. At the time when Baker (2007)
stated, “much is known about bilingual education in North
America and in Western Europe. The world knows very little
about bilingual education in China” (p. vii), there were four
English articles related to bilingual education (Figure 6).
After a decade of research scholarship, a global systematic
review only identified three studies in Chinese universities
(see Macaro et al., 2018). We observed the same pattern in
our own review, mainly due to the lack of dissemination
of the English language outside the Chinese community
(although there was a preponderance of literature published
in Chinese).
The language of publication differs not only in quantity
but also in the research paradigm. More specifically, there is
a consistently reported paucity of empirical or data-based
studies in Chinese (e.g., 7% in J. Liu et al., 2006; 7% in D.
Zheng & Dai, 2013). This may be explained by the holistic
Tong et al. 11
and dialogical thinking of “me” in Chinese, compared with
the Western tradition that detaches the authors to a third-per-
son stance, and seeks the analytic investigation prevalent in
Western academia (Tierney & Kan, 2016; Y. Zhao et al.,
2008). We agree with Kirkpatrick’s (2011) recommendation
that the dissemination of knowledge and scholarship should
maintain a balance between local language and English, and
that bilingual journals should be established in colleges and
universities. At the very least, English abstracts should be
searchable and made available to an international audience.
To this end, our synthesis also increases awareness of the
lack of Asian studies on this subject and addresses the criti-
cism on the overrepresentation of American studies in major
educational and psychological journals. Another observation
worth mentioning is that the English articles included in this
review were all authored by native English speakers or
Chinese scholars who received doctoral or postdoctoral
training in Western countries. The nature of bilingual educa-
tion relies on research that can generate practical evidence
and, therefore, identifies a need for more empirical studies
with rigorous designs that can contribute to “a solid knowl-
edge base for policymaking” (X. Gao & Wang, 2017, p. 228).
We speculate that this epistemological form of inquiry will
be realized as more Chinese scholars with overseas creden-
tials and Western research dispositions return. As many
higher institutions in China increase their efforts to recruit
these scholars, as well as the internationalization of higher
education more generally (Hughes, 2008; Tierney & Kan,
2016), we expect a considerable volume of work on the topic
to appear in English outlets.
Phase II: What Was Explored
In this section, we examined 301 empirical studies to answer
Research Question 3 “What are students’ attitudes/percep-
tion toward bilingual education, and what are their perceived
challenges?” as well as Research Question 4 “What form of
bilingual education is most popular?” A discussion follows
each question.
Students’ attitudes/perceptions and perceived challenges in bilin-
gual education (Q4).  Among all 301 data-driven studies, 123
(92 Chinese articles, 6%; 31 English articles, 52%) addressed
the topic of Chinese college students’ attitudes toward bilin-
gual education. Responses were expectedly and predomi-
nantly in favor of bilingual education; however, further
investigation revealed a few important issues. First, students
perceived learning a content area in English as challenging,
due to the highly specialized vocabulary of the discipline
(e.g., B. Peng, 2016; W. Yu et al., 2016). Second, students
also expressed concerns that their English proficiency
played a critical role in the success of learning their subject
in English (e.g., G. Hu & Lei, 2014; J. Li & Zhang, 2016;
X. Xiao et al., 2011), and there was a lack of opportunity to
enhance communicative competency in English (W. Wang
& Curdt-Christiansen, 2019). A third issue was associated
with five studies (Bolton & Botha, 2015; L. Guo et al., 2016;
G. Hu & Lei, 2014; Ouyang & Gao, 2016; P. Wang et al.,
2016) that reported contradictory responses from (a) archi-
tecture and chemistry majors who expressed little interest in
bilingual course content and (b) medical students who did
not believe that participating in the course had facilitated
learning academic English or improved their general Eng-
lish skills. These findings reveal that students’ attitudes
were associated with the challenge of quality bilingual pro-
grams (i.e., students’ English proficiency and instructors’
qualifications), which takes us to the next section.
Students’ English proficiency.  Among the 301 data-driven stud-
ies, 170 (128 Chinese articles, 8%; 42 English articles, 70%)
addressed the topic of college students’ English proficiency.
These studies suggested that students’ English proficiency
was a determinant of the quality of bilingual education (e.g.,
L. Guo et al., 2011; N. Wang & Du, 2012; L. Yu & Han,
2011). In addition, this body of literature pointed to a discon-
nect between students’ general English proficiency and their
academic English in the specific areas of content (J. Li &
Zhang, 2016; T. Wang, 2015; X. Zhang et al., 2015), as
well as a great variation among students’ English proficiency
(Z. Wang, 2016). Some researchers reported that students
had limited listening and oral skills in English (e.g., X. Chen,
Lv, et al., 2016; W. Yang, 2016). Therefore, to benefit the
most from bilingual courses, students were recommended to
demonstrate an initial threshold (e.g., J. Han & Yu, 2007;
L. Yu & Han, 2011), which was normally measured by two
nationally standardized assessments (i.e., College English
Test-Band 4 [CET-4] and College Entrance Exam-English
test). CET-4 is mandatory for all non-English majors to test
their general English ability in listening, speaking, reading
comprehension, and writing (Y. Yang & Qian, 2017), and is
usually taken in the second semester of the sophomore year
(J. Xu & Fan, 2017). Students who pass CET-4 are consid-
ered to have mastered a sufficient amount of language (i.e.,
4, 500 words and 700 phrases, MOE, 2004) to participate in
a bilingual program (J. X. Han, 2009; J. Jiang, 2004; X. Li
et al., 2009; Z. Wu et al., 2017). Regarding the College
Entrance Exam, G. Hu et al. (2014) proposed a cutoff score
of 120 (80%) as an eligibility criterion for program participa-
tion. Their proposal was echoed in an earlier empirical study
in which 80% on CET 4 (or 60% on CET 6, an advanced
English level) was associated with a solid linguistic reper-
toire that is deemed appropriate for learning content in
English (J. Han & Yu, 2007).
Instructors’ English proficiency.  Another finding derived from a
survey of students’ perception concerns bilingual instructors’
qualifications, which was the main focus of almost all the
English studies (n = 27, 90%), and a little over a quarter of
Chinese studies (n = 84, 31%). Strong recommendations
were presented in these studies to enhance instructors’
12 SAGE Open
content area knowledge and skills in English, including (a)
ongoing workshops/training on native pronunciation and
communication, and pedagogy in teaching bilingual courses
(e.g., Z. Chen & Goh, 2014; Y. Feng, 2009; G. Hu & Duan,
2019; Yin & Chen, 2016); (b) internal collaboration with fac-
ulty in foreign language/linguistic departments to form team
teaching (e.g., Bi, 2011; K. Feng, 2016; L. Jiang, Zhang, &
May, 2016; H. Li, 2011; Yan, 2016), or external/vertical col-
laboration with bilingual instructors from tier-one institu-
tions in the same discipline (L. Zhao et al., 2010); (c)
international experiences in English-speaking academic set-
tings, such as attending professional conferences (Z. Chen &
Goh, 2014; Du & Zhao, 2013; Y. Fang, 2009; Hou & Hu,
2014; C. Wu, 2011; K. Xiao, 2013); and (d) direct recruit-
ment of candidates with advanced degrees from these institu-
tions (e.g., A. Feng et al., 2017; Y. Huang, 2006; J. Li et al.,
2016; B. Liu et al., 2016; Peng, 2016; Yin & Chen, 2016).
Discussion. Findings from this phase suggest that not-
withstanding a large number of survey research, no detailed
process was adopted by higher institutions in consulting and
engaging their faculty and/or students, who are stakehold-
ers that are directly affected by this educational movement.
This finding echoes the current trend in bilingual education
worldwide (Macaro et al., 2018). Moreover, despite the gen-
erally positive attitudes toward bilingual education identi-
fied among college students majoring in diverse disciplines,
their increased awareness of the challenges associated with
offering quality bilingual courses was consistently reported
in previous reviews (e.g., F. G. Fang, 2018; D. Zheng & Dai,
2013; Zhu & Yue, 2010).
First, the shortage of qualified instructors has become a
major roadblock for the successful continuation and expan-
sion of bilingual education in Chinese universities (Cheng,
2017). Nevertheless, most of the empirical studies in our
review were conducted through survey research, capturing
students’ perspectives. Few studies directly addressed the
best practices for improving pedagogy (e.g., overseas training
in Cheng, 2017; training in the use of interactional/high-cog-
nitive strategy, G. Hu & Duan, 2019) or provided a profile of
the instructor’s professional background when the effect of
bilingual education was examined (e.g., Tong & Shi, 2012).
While teaching abroad may be a strong desire for bilingual
teachers (Werther et al., 2014), the “effectiveness of a bor-
rowed idea, practice or innovation depends crucially on its
appropriateness for the specific, local, and dynamic reality of
teaching and learning in a particular educational context” (G.
Hu, 2009, p. 131). Therefore, an overseas training program is
not the solution, but rather a first step in building up a support
mechanism for bilingual instructors’ professional develop-
ment, which is an ongoing process (Cheng, 2017; E. Zhou &
Ding, 2012) that requires significant resources (Macaro et al.,
2018). Equally important is the belief that for these instruc-
tors to be agents of change, they need to feel a sense of entitle-
ment in this educational investment, rather than a passive role
of participation. More evidence-based research can further
such an understanding and reflect practice before a high-qual-
ity bilingual course is offered, for the purpose of maximizing
student learning.
Second, in regard to students’ English proficiency, we
raise concerns that were partly due to there being no clear
definition of English proficiency. To be more specific, a large
proportion of the studies cited a perceived improvement in
students’ English proficiency as a great benefit of bilingual
education (e.g., J. Li et al., 2016) without psychometrically
sound instruments to measure such proficiency. Although
very few studies showed a high passing rate of CET-4 among
bilingual participants (e.g., Ma et al., 2016), there was no
mention of the rate among nonbilingual participants, or their
initial English levels prior to participation. In addition, little
evidence regarding CET being indicative of higher academic
achievement exists. As a result of these limitations, the bulk
of the literature reviewed in this study failed to contribute to
the discussion on the effectiveness of bilingual education.
Instead, the literature speaks to a timely pursuit in defining
and evaluating English proficiency so as to address the ques-
tion of whether participation in bilingual education can truly
improve students’ English competence, as proposed by
Macaro et al. (2018) in their global systematic review. We
want to remind the reader that scholarly attention should not
only be allocated to English proficiency as a gatekeeper of
bilingual education; what is more vital and beneficial, we
argue, is to conduct research on how to provide English sup-
port and integrate English into curriculums, so that students
can continue developing their academic English proficiency
and thus be prepared for content taught in English.
On a different note, although not a specific focus of this
review, we found that the vast majority of Chinese articles
published with content area instructors being the lead authors
(reflecting on their practices) included neither a coauthor that
had expertise in second language acquisition and pedagogy
nor one that was trained in research methodology. More than
a decade later, the recommendation of H. Xu (2008) and
D. Zheng and Dai (2013) that collaboration should occur not
only between subject and language specialists but also
between practitioners and researchers in bilingual education
is yet to be realized.
Bilingual program models (Q4).  Among all empirical arti-
cles, only 40 (13%) mentioned the types of bilingual models
that were implemented, with the majority being immer-
sion (n = 33, 85%; e.g., Lian et al., 2011; H. Zhang, 2012)
and a small proportion being transition (n = 4, 10%; e.g.,
Ma & Liao, 2013) or maintenance models (n = 3, 5%, e.g.,
Y. Zhao, Yang, et al., 2007). A similar pattern was observed
among the larger pool in Phase I, where the immersion
bilingual model turned out to be the most popular (71%).
However, according to Y. Li (2012), in some immersion pro-
grams, Chinese accounted for at least 50% of the language
of instruction. Such a mismatch between program label and
Tong et al. 13
actual implementation led us to further explore classroom
deliveries. Among the 301 empirical studies reviewed, we
identified an emerging trend with three Chinese studies (i.e.,
L. Guo & Wang, 2017; L. He et al., 2016; Kang, 2015) and
eight English studies (i.e., Chang, 2017; G. Hu & Duan,
2019; G. Hu & Li, 2017; A. L. Jiang & Zhang, 2017; L.
Jiang, Zhang, & May, 2016; Lei & Hu, 2014; Tong & Tang,
2017; W. Wang & Curdt-Christiansen, 2019; X. Yang, 2017)
that described pedagogical occurrences in bilingual class-
rooms, effectively enriching our understanding of bilingual
education in practice. For example, some studies reported
instructors’ inadequate use of higher order thinking ques-
tions that have been proven to promote bilingual students’
academic English language in ESL settings (e.g., G. Hu &
Duan, 2019; G. Hu & Li, 2017; Tong & Tang, 2017).
Discussion. Findings regarding bilingual program models
suggest that specifications of program models are far from ade-
quate. Despite the popularity of the immersion model among
the small percentage of studies that discussed models of imple-
mentation, S. Zhang (2015) strongly promoted the transitional
bilingual model that takes into consideration the challenge
of the authentic English language environment, instructors’
qualification, and instructional material. Some research-
ers suggested a combination of language of distribution, for
example, having 30% in English (X. Liu et al., 2012; M. Lu
& Ma, 2016). However, according to G. Hu’s (2008) criti-
cism, these terminologies on program models (i.e., immersion,
transitional) are misaligned with the international literature
on bilingual education. This is because there are fundamen-
tal differences in sociocultural, educational, linguistic, politi-
cal, economic, and historical contexts between China and the
countries where these models originated (Q. Qu, 2015; Tong &
Shi, 2012). Taking a transitional bilingual model as an exam-
ple, the concept was imported from North America, where the
language of instruction transitioned from a minority language
to majority language; this contrasts the transition program in
Chinese higher education, which aims to use Chinese (majority
language) as a bridge to English (minority language), for the
purpose of developing students’ English proficiency in an aca-
demic context (P. Wang, 2017). Due to such a distinction, the
exclusive use of English became a disservice to bilingual/mul-
tilingual students, particularly in a context where much more
information is available in L1. These activities are dangerous
in that they contribute to a form of linguistic hegemony that
can be disruptive to the ecology of a local language (F. G. Fang,
2018; Kirkpatrick, 2014; D. Li, 2013).
A substantial distinction has been uncovered between
what a program is labeled as and what is actually practiced,
not only in an English-speaking setting (Irby et al., 2007) but
also in China (Y. Li, 2012) and other Eastern countries
(Barnard & McLellan, 2014). Although our review points
out such a distinction, research in this area is still scarce.
Without more information on observed practices, program
evaluation stands on no ground. Therefore, it is imperative to
objectively capture pedagogical practices in bilingual class-
rooms (H. Guo et al., 2018; Tong, Luo, et al., 2017). We urge
Chinese academics to purposefully reconsider a framework
with appropriate designation or variation of forms of bilin-
gual education that is analogous to terms widely known to
English audiences; more importantly, such a framework
ought to accommodate the needs of stakeholders (i.e., stu-
dents and instructors) and fits into the nativized landscape of
Chinese higher education.
Relatedly, H. Guo et al. (2018) reasoned that the yet-to-be
proved effectiveness of bilingual education in China is due to
“a lack of a commonly adopted, comprehensive evaluation
framework that draws from, and is informed by, empirical
evidence produced through quality research” (p. 13). We
assert that a localized bilingual education theory with model
specifications can significantly contribute to guiding data-
driven research in Chinese higher education institutions.
Phase III: How Was It Studied
From a methodological perspective and the review in Phase
I, we found that 18.7% of studies were data driven. It is also
worth mentioning that 73% (n = 203) of the empirical stud-
ies in Phase II involved survey research with mostly
researcher-developed measures based on authors’ experi-
ences or adapted from existing instruments. In general, there
was a lack of information on psychometric properties, such
as the reliability and validity of survey instruments that were
used to collect the data. Among these survey articles, only
nine reported reliability, including five in English (i.e.,
M. Li, 2017; Tong et al., 2017; Tong & Shi, 2012; Wei et al.,
2017; Xu, 2017) and four in Chinese (i.e., M. Lu & Ma,
2016; Wan et al., 2015; H. Zhang & Zhang, 2011; X. Zhang
et al., 2015), with two using a structural equation modeling
approach in which reliability is conventionally calculated as
part of the statistical model. In this section, we continue our
review of the methodological characteristics of 34 compara-
tive studies in Phase III following H. Cooper’s (2016) ele-
ments: (a) type of assignment; (b) baseline equivalence; (c)
threats to internal validity (e.g., confounding, selection bias);
and (d) type, language, and evidence of validity/reliability of
an outcome measure. Detailed coding of these elements was
demonstrated in Table 2.
Random assignment and baseline equivalence.  After careful
scrutiny, we identified only 10 studies (nine in the field of
medicine and one in business) that were randomized con-
trolled trials (RCTs), and only three studies that had intact
class as a unit of assignment (i.e., Y. He et al., 2018; Sha
et al., 2014; Shi et al., 2016). The other seven randomly
assigned students to either bilingual or monolingual instruc-
tion (i.e., L. He et al., 2016; A. Liu, 2019; Long et al., 2019;
Mi, 2018; Xing et al., 2012; Yuan, 2016; X. Zhao et al.,
2016). Yuan (2016), for instance, applied a block random-
ized design strategy based on students’ test scores on the
14 SAGE Open

Table 2.  Coding Sheet of 34 Studies in Phase III Review.

Study design
(RCT/QED/ Psychometrics
Study nonexperimental) Baseline reported of instrument Bilingual vs. non-bilingual Statistical/numerical

J. Yu., & Z. Liu, 2012 Nonexperimental No No Positive in passing rate of CET 4 and CET Numerical
6; negative in content
P. Wang et al., 2016 Nonexperimental No No Positive in content, survey numerical Statistical
description
W. Yu et al., 2016 Nonexperimental No No Positive in content, survey numerical Numerical
description
X. Lu et al., 2015 Nonexperimental No No Positive in content, survey numerical Numerical
description
Z. Gao., et al., 2012 Nonexperimental No No Positive in content and satisfactory growth Numerical
Shi et al., 2016 Nonexperimental No No Positive (survey and rate of passing CET 4 Numerical
and CET 6)
Y. Zhao, Zhang, et al., Nonexperimental No No Positive (English textbook > 50% English Statistical
2007 = Chinese Textbook)
J. Han, 2017 Nonexperimental No No Positive in content knowledge; no Statistical
comparison for survey
L. Zhang, 2016 Nonexperimental No No Positive (bilingual PBL > Chinese PBL) Numerical
N. Zhang et al., 2012 Nonexperimental No No Positive ([English vocabulary/keypoints Statistical in content
with Chinese support + Chinese/ knowledge; numerical in
English delivery + English slides with survey
Chinese translation] > [Chinese delivery
+ English slides]; [English vocabulary/
keypoints with Chinese support +
Chinese/English delivery + English slides
with Chinese translation] > [English
vocabulary/keypoints with Chinese
support + Chinese/English delivery +
Chinese slides])
S. Deng et al., 2010 Nonexperimental No No Positive Statistical
Q. Huang & Zhen, 2015 Nonexperimental No No Positive Statistical
R. Zhou, 2008 Nonexperimental No No Positive Numerical
L. Guo et al., 2011 Nonexperimental No No PBL bilingual > bilingual > nonbilingual Statistical
N. Wang et al., 2015 Nonexperimental No No PBL bilingual > bilingual Statistical (subject syntax,
subject reading, and subject
knowledge total); numerical
(subject vocabulary)
H. Wang et al., 2016 Nonexperimental No No PBL bilingual > bilingual Statistical (medical case
analysis, clinical research
development, and survey);
numerical (basic content
knowledge)
Z. Liu Luo, & Hu, 2012 Nonexperimental No No No difference n/a
Sun & Xiao, 2006 Nonexperimental No No Negative in midterm and final Statistical in midterm;
numerical in final
H. Zhang, 2012 Nonexperimental No No Negative Numerical
Lian et al., 2011 Nonexperimental No No Negative Numerical
D. Qin et al., 2013 Nonexperimental No No Positive in English; no difference in content; Statistical in English outcome
survey: no comparison, only description.
**J. X. Han, 2009 QED Yes; no difference in English No Positive: English Statistical
language No difference: content knowledge n/a
*G. Zhang, 2012 QED Yes; no difference in age, No Positive: English, subject content Statistical
gender, or English language Positive: attitude and interest Numerical
proficiency
Lei & Hu, 2014 QED Yes, bilingual > nonbilingual No No difference n/a
in CET 4
*L. He et al., 2016 RCT Yes, no difference in entrance No Positive: English, subject content, and Statistical
examination; not included in satisfaction
outcome analysis
**A. Liu, 2019 RCT No no Positive: English and evaluation Statistical
Positive: content knowledge Numerical
**Mi, 2018 RCT yes No Positive (content knowledge) Statistical
**Y. He et al., 2018 RCT No No Positive (content knowledge and survey Statistical
[necessity of bilingual course, factors
affect bilingual education and after-class
review])
**Xing et al., 2012 RCT Yes, no difference in basic No Positive (bilingual PBL > Chinese PBL): Statistical
medical achievement; not content knowledge Statistical
included in outcome analysis Positive: attitudes

(continued)
Tong et al. 15
Table 2. (continued)
Study design
(RCT/QED/
Study nonexperimental) Baseline reported
Yuan, 2016 RCT
**Long et al., 2019 RCT Yes; no difference in English
language proficiency
**Sha et al., 2014 RCT No
**X. Zhao et al., 2016 RCT No
Shi, Chen, Li, Wan, Han, RCT Yes; no difference in CET-4
& Peng, 2016
CET = College English Test; RCT = randomized controlled trial; QED = quasi-experimental design; PBL = project-based learning.
*RCT/QED that reported statistically positive effect in both English and content area (n = 2).
**RCT/QED that reported statistically positive effect in either English (n = 2) or content area (n = 6).
content areas which were first divided into five categories
from levels A to E. Within each category, students were then
randomly assigned into bilingual or monolingual Chinese
classes. In the remaining 24 articles, random assignment was
either falsely claimed (i.e., Sun & Xiao, 2006; G. Zhang,
2012) or unclaimed (e.g., Z. Liu, Luo, & Han, 2012). For
example, G. Zhang (2012) randomly selected one class (from
a total of six) to receive bilingual instruction, and another
class to receive Chinese-only instruction.
In addition to this, when random assignment did not
occur, an examination of initial equivalence was required to
ensure the comparability of the two groups from the outset
(Campbell & Stanley, 2015). However, only three quasi-
experimental designs (QEDs) reported the baseline of par-
ticipants’ gender distribution, age, and English proficiency
(i.e., J. X. Han, 2009; Lei & Hu, 2014; G. Zhang, 2012), in
which J. X. Han’s (2009) study was quantitative with 274
participants (137 in treatment and 137 in control condition).
The author conducted an independent t test on participants’
English language proficiency measured by a university-level
English placement test that was administered during the first
week of the semester. No statistically significant difference
was found between the two groups. Although there were
another five articles that compared age, gender, English pro-
ficiency, and attitudes between bilingual and monolingual
classes, no descriptive or inferential statistics were presented
to support their statements (e.g., N. Zhang et al., 2012).
Evidence of validity/reliability and types of outcome mea-
sures.  Among 34 comparative studies, there were three RCTs
(i.e., L. He et al., 2016; A. Liu, 2019; Shi, Chen, et al., 2016)
that measured participants’ outcomes in both English and
content knowledge at the end of the program. Other outcomes
included participants’ satisfaction (i.e., L. He et al., 2016; L.
Zhang, 2016), anxiety, confidence, interest, learning initia-
tive, memory (i.e., Zhan et al., 2016), interest (e.g., L. Chen
et al., 2016; G. Zhang, 2012), and self-efficacy, motivation,
and metacognition (i.e., Shi et al., 2016). These outcomes
Psychometrics
of instrument Bilingual vs. non-bilingual Statistical/numerical
No Positive (bilingual flipped classroom > Numerical
bilingual classroom)
No Positive ([50% English instructional language Statistical
+ 20% English multimedia content] >
[all Chinese] > [50% English multimedia
content+ 20% English instructional
language]): content knowledge
No Positive: content knowledge Statistical
No Positive: content knowledge Statistical
Positive: motivation Statistical
No Positive: content knowledge and English Numerical
were all collected through self-reported instruments in the
respective studies, in which the researchers failed to provide
psychometric evidence.
Based on the previously mentioned outcomes in Table 2,
a total of 20 studies demonstrated a significant difference in
favor of bilingual programs in English, specific subjects, or
affective domains, including eight RCTs and two QEDs that
all came from the medical science field (e.g., anesthesiology,
nephrology, and physiology in Chinese medicine), except for
one that was in the field of math. A closer examination of
Table 2 reveals that among the 10 methodologically sound
studies of RCTs and QEDs (i.e., L. He et al., 2016; G. Zhang,
2012), two found statistically significant positive outcomes
in both English and content knowledge. The other eight
reported a positive effect of bilingual courses in terms of stu-
dents’ performance either on their specific subject (n = 6) or
in English (n = 2).
Finally, in studies that failed to detect a statistically sig-
nificant difference in the content area, interpretations were
formed from a contrasting perspective. J. X. Han’s (2009)
QED concluded that bilingual instruction was equally as
effective as Chinese-only instruction in supporting students’
academic achievement in mathematics. Lei and Hu (2014)
concluded with an undetermined quality of the focal pro-
gram, despite bilingual students’ overall satisfaction of the
program. As was mentioned above, a serious weakness in Lei
and Hu’s study is the initial inequivalence between the two
groups of students, which raises questions about the compa-
rability, and leads to an unfavorable conclusion of bilingual
education.
Discussion.  We now turn to a discussion on the compara-
tive studies reviewed in this article. First, G. Hu and Li
(2017) summarized that there was virtually no empirical
investigation that involved a comparison group of mono-
lingual Chinese instruction to address the effect of bilingual
education on students’ English proficiency and academic
outcome. Their concern was supported in our comprehensive
16 SAGE Open
review. Despite a substantial amount of work, research over
the course of nearly two decades has only produced a total of
34 studies that compared bilingual education with a monolin-
gual, Chinese-only approach. Furthermore, only 13 articles
attempted a randomized technique at the student/class level
or identified comparable counterparts, which are the most
rigorous designs for testing causality (Campbell & Stanley,
2015). Unfortunately, our in-depth review of these studies
revealed recurring methodological issues, such as nonran-
dom assignment, group incomparability, missing informa-
tion, a lack of statistical control for baseline inequivalence on
participants’ knowledge and skills in the subject, or a lack of
information on its implementation. These flawed approaches
compromised the nature of internal validity, one of the most
critical elements in experimental design (as it is associated
with random assignment and, thus, causality; Campbell &
Stanley, 2015; Coleman, 2018), which consequently under-
mined the credibility of the findings.
Second, it is not surprising that the two most commonly
examined outcomes were English language proficiency mea-
sured by CET, or other English tests and grades on content
knowledge (measured by instructor-developed, nonstandard-
ized instruments). However, problems still exist. For exam-
ple, the studies that attend to both outcomes are scarce, which
is problematic as the ultimate goal of the Chinese government
is to prepare people with both a strong communicative ability
in English and knowledge and skills in their respective sub-
ject area. The six studies that reached a certain level of con-
sensus on the positive outcome in the medical science
disciplines were overshadowed by abundant, nonempirical
research, which corresponded to the conclusions of existing
reviews presented earlier in this article (e.g., F. G. Fang, 2018;
D. Zheng & Dai, 2013). What is more, none of the 34 studies
reported any reliability (e.g., internal consistency) or validity
(e.g., construct validity) indicators of the measures used for
comparison. Although CET is nationally normed with strong
psychometrics (College English Test Band 4 and Band 6,
2018), no information regarding the sample was presented in
these studies. There is a common understanding that reliabil-
ity and validity are critical psychometric features of an instru-
ment, and their findings inform the professional community,
as well as the policy-makers that make high-stake decisions
(Gitomer et al., 2019). The lack of such information hinders
meaningful interpretation of the results, rendering them inad-
equate and unconvincing. We agree with Lei and Hu’s (2014)
recommendation that more discipline-specific measures of
English should be developed and validated.
Third, after a long debate in the United States, the positive
effect of bilingual education among young children has been
documented in quality research and acknowledged by
researchers and practitioners (Irby et al., 2010; Lindholm-
Leary, 2016) through a well-controlled, randomized design
with a high level of implementation fidelity. This is not the
case when it comes to an inquiry into the effectiveness of
bilingual education in China. Studies with cognitive/affective
domains (such as self-identity, self-efficacy, learning anxiety,
and learning motivation) are rarely conducted, which corre-
sponds to the previous reviews by H. Xu (2008) and D. Zheng
and Dai (2013). These constructs are expected to affect the
quality of bilingual education (D. Zheng & Dai, 2013) and,
thus, deserve comprehensive exploration.
These findings, however, not only resonate with previous
reviews in the context of mainland China (i.e., Fan, 2014)
and Hong Kong (Lo & Lo, 2014), but are also applicable to
academic discourse of bilingual education worldwide
(Macaro et al., 2018). The aforementioned issues have sig-
nificantly hindered the establishment of a causal effect rela-
tionship that is typically derived from rigorous randomized
controls to address the impact of bilingual education; this
suggests a need for more scientific exploration before any
research synthesis that involves statistical approaches (such
as best-evidence and meta-analysis) can be undertaken to
quantify the effectiveness of bilingual programs in Chinese
higher education. Conducting experimental research in bilin-
gual education is challenging (X. Gao & Wang, 2017; G. Hu
& Lei, 2014); nevertheless, it is only through solid design
and evaluation that research scholarship can be enriched with
compelling evidence to address the ultimate question: is
bilingual education effective?
Recommendations and Conclusion
From the insight provided by this systematic review, we sug-
gest that even after almost two decades of research and prac-
tice in bilingual education in Chinese higher education, there
is still a dearth of strong evidence from a contextualized
body of research that can attest to the effectiveness of bilin-
gual education as a result of ideological and epistemological
orientation, as well as a lack of rigorous research design and
implementation. We believe that the distorted academic dis-
course elaborated in G. Hu’s (2008) study a decade ago, that
was rife with misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and mis-
interpretation, is partly due to this. The well-intended and
far-reaching policy provision of bilingual education has not
resulted in significant and favorable conclusions. However,
before such a definitive and convincing statement can be
made, we insist that scholarly attention should continue to
revolve around the quality and implementation of bilingual
programs with the following recommendations, which are
derived from our findings and supported by the existing body
of literature:
•• An instruction/curriculum/evaluation team to be formed
including a content specialist, language teacher, and
researcher (Fan, 2014; H. Xu, 2008; D. Zheng & Dai,
2013; Zhu & Yu, 2010);
•• Examination of local policy and resource allocation
that has the potential to shape educational practices;
•• A scientific program evaluation framework to be
established and reinforced (H. Guo et al., 2018);
Tong et al. 17
•• Observational research on the interplay of the distri-
bution of two languages, content of each language,
and instructor–student interaction (H. Guo et al.,
2018; G. Hu & Duan, 2019; Macaro et al., 2018;
W. Wang & Curdt-Christiansen, 2019);
•• Large-scale empirical/data-based research and longi-
tudinal (more than 1 year) investigations that address
linguistic, academic, and affective outcomes (such as
self-identity, learning motivation, learning strategy,
attitudes; D. Zheng & Dai, 2013);
•• Well-controlled experimental studies comparing
bilingual course with L1-instructed courses, control-
ling for learners’ initial level of content area knowl-
edge, as well as access to instructional and learning
material outside the classroom (or socioeconomic
status; X. Gao & Wang, 2017);
•• Inclusion of psychometrically sound instruments in
survey research and standardized outcome measures,
the result of which can be compared across studies
(Bray et al., 2014; Macaro et al., 2018);
•• Dissemination in English to reach a broader audience
of researchers and practitioners who are interested in
bilingual education through an international lens that
promotes scholarly exchange.
To conclude, to the best of our knowledge, this study is the first
to systematically synthesize research studies (published in both
English and Chinese) of postsecondary bilingual education and
provides ample evidence of students’ learning in mainland
China, which has 3.5 million English learners. Results from
this review can, in turn, shed light on the debate of the educa-
tional benefits of bilingual education in mainland Chinese soci-
ety, the scholarly community, and the government’s formulation
of bilingual education policies in the coming decades. In addi-
tion, by scrutinizing the academic discourse in bilingual educa-
tion, this study may provide policy implications and suggestions
on how to put L2 learning and bilingual education programs
into practice in a global context. Again, it is worth mentioning
that this article is not intended to be viewed as an advocation
for bilingual education; more rigorous research that can gener-
ate credible evidence speaking to the effectiveness of bilingual
education may emerge elsewhere. Instead, this article responds
to an urgent need to substantively highlight a picture of the
scholarly trajectory to guide further research in this top-down
educational movement that continues to increase its presence,
momentum, and inevitability with unquestioned institutional-
ized policies and practices.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Fuhui Tong   https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0555-892X
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the
review.
Adams, R. J., Smart, P., & Huff, A. S. (2017). Shades of grey:
Guidelines for working with the grey literature in system-
atic reviews for management and organizational studies.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(4), 432–454.
Airey, J. (2016). EAP, EMI or CLIL? In K. Hyland & P. Shaw
(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic
purpose (pp. 71–83). Routledge.
Alatas, F. S. (2006). Alternative discourses in Asian social science.
Responses to Eurocentrism. Sage.
Baker, C. (2007). Foreword. In A. Feng (Ed.), Bilingual educa-
tion in China: Practice, policies and concepts (pp. vii–viii).
Multilingual Matters.
Baker, C., & Wright, W. E. (2017). Foundations of bilingual educa-
tion and bilingualism (6th ed.). Multilingual Matters.
Barnard, R., & McLellan, J. (2014). Codeswitching in English
medium classes: Case studies and perspectives from East
Asian contexts. Multilingual Matters.
*Bi, H. (2011). 高校双语教学中英语教师的作用与角色定位
[The role and role orientation of College English teachers
in bilingual education]. 考试周刊. Examination Weekly, 78,
91–92.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. H. Holt.
Bolton, K., & Botha, W. (2015). English in China’s universities:
Past and present. World Englishes, 34(2), 190–210. https://doi.
org/10.1111/weng.12133
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2009).
Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley.
Bray, M., Adamson, B., & Mason, M. (2014). Different models, dif-
ferent emphases, different insights. In M. Bray, B. Adamson,
& M. Mason (Eds.), Comparative education research (pp.
417–436). Springer.
Brown, H., & Bradford, A. (2018). Teaching subject-content through
English: CLIL and EMI courses in the Japanese university. In
P. Wadden & C. C. Hale (Eds.), Teaching English at Japanese
universities: A new handbook (pp. 103–108). Routledge.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (2015). Experimental and quasi-
experimental designs for research. Ravenio Books.
*Chang, C. (2017). English-medium instruction. In J. Zhao & L.
Q. Dixon (Eds.), English-medium instruction in Chinese uni-
versities: Perspectives, discourse and evaluation (pp. 79–104).
Routledge.
*Chen, L., Li, S., Yu, B., Hong, Y., Zheng, J., Li, X., & Liu, Y. (2016).
双语教学在神经外科解剖知识讲授中的应用 [Application of
bilingual education in neurosurgical anatomy]. 解剖科学进展.
Advances in Anatomical Sciences, 2, 230–231.
*Chen, X., Lv, Q., Liu, Y., & Deng, W. (2016). 农牧专业《 动
物生理学》 课程实施双语教学的探讨 [Discussion on the
application of bilingual pedagogy in “animal physiology”
course in agriculture and animal husbandry major]. 畜牧与饲
料科学 Animal Husbandry and Feed Science, 37(2), 61–63.
Chen, Z., & Goh, C. (2014). Teacher knowledge about oral English
instruction and teacher profiles: An EFL perspective. Teacher
Development, 18(1), 81–99.
18 SAGE Open
*Cheng, R. (2017). A sneak peek at training English-medium
instructors in China. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based
Language Education, 5(1), 87–109.
Cheung, A. C., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). How features of educational
technology applications affect student reading outcomes: A
meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 7(3), 198–215.
Coleman, R. (2018). Designing experiments for the social sciences:
How to plan, create, and execute research using experiments.
Sage.
College English Test Band 4 and Band 6. (2018). The nature of
college English test. http://www.cet.edu.cn/cet_concept1.htm
Cooper, H. (2016). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-
by-step approach (5th ed.). Sage.
Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (2009). The handbook
of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). Russell Sage
Foundation.
Cooper, I. D., & Crum, J. A. (2013). New activities and changing
roles of health sciences librarians: A systematic review, 1990–
2012. Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA),
101(4), 268–277. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC3794682/
*Deng, S., Li, X., Huang, H., Li, C., He, Q., & Chen, C. (2010).
本科护生《 基础护理学》 双语教学效果研究 [A study on
the effect of bilingual teaching of “basic nursing” for under-
graduate nursing majors]. 湘南学院学报 (医学版) Journal of
Xiangnan College (Medical Sciences), 12(4), 77–78.
Diebold, A. R. (1964). Incipient bilingualism. In D. Hymes (Ed.),
Language in culture and society (pp. 495–511). Harper & Row.
*Du, X., & Zhao, X. (2013). “矿井通风与安全” 双语教学探讨 [A
bilingual course in mine ventilation and safety]. 中国电力教
育. China Electric Power Education, 13, 068.
Elmagarmid, A., Fedorowicz, Z., Hammady, H., Ilyas, I., Khabsa,
M., & Ouzzani, M. (2014). Rayyan: A systematic reviews web
app for exploring and filtering searches for eligible studies
for Cochrane Reviews. In Evidence-informed public health:
Opportunities and challenges. Abstracts of the 22nd Cochrane
Colloquium (pp. 21–26). John Wiley.
*Fan, X. (2014). 我国高等院校双语教学研究现状的统计分析
研究 [Statistical analysis of research in bilingual teaching in
colleges and universities in China]. 语文学刊：基础教育版
Journal of Language and Literature, 10, 124–126.
Fang, F. G. (2018). Review of English as a medium of instruction
in Chinese universities today: Current trends and future direc-
tions. English Today, 34(1), 32–37.
*Fang, Y. (2009). 论高校双语教师队伍建设中的问题及对策
[On the development of university bilingual teaching staff:
Problems and solutions]. 华中农业大学学报: 社会科学版
Journal of Huazhong Agriculture University (Social Science
Edition), 2, 106–109.
*Feng, A., Huang, B., Li, Q., Ma, F., Zhang, Z., Zhang, B., Liang, S.,
Li, L., & Pei, X. (2017). Using English to teach content courses
in universities for nationalities. In J. Zhao & L. Q. Dixon
(Eds.), English-medium instruction in Chinese universities:
Perspectives, discourse and evaluation (pp. 45–58). Routledge.
*Feng, K. (2016). 双语教材的知识结构特点 [Knowledge struc-
tures in bilingual textbooks]. 东莞理工学院学报. Journal of
Dongguanuniversity of Technology, 23(4), 72–76.
*Feng, Y. (2005). The similarities and differences between the
goals of bilingual education in China and the United States.
Online Submission, 3(11), 48–52.
*Feng, Y. (2009). 对高校双语教学情况的认识与建议-项基于
双语任课教师的调查 [Understanding of and suggestions for
college bilingual education: A survey of bilingual teachers].
贵州民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版). Journal of Guizhou
Ethnicity University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 3,
184–186.
Gao, X., & Ren, W. (2019). Controversies of bilingual education
in China. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 22(3), 267–273.
Gao, X., & Wang, W. (2017). Bilingual education in the People’s
Republic of China. In O. García & A. Lin (Eds.), Encyclopedia
of language and education: Bilingual and multilingual educa-
tion (pp. 219–231). Springer.
*Gao, Z., Lei, H., Shi, R., & Liu, B. (2012). “三 I” 双语教学模式
下的中药化学教学方法改革探索 [Exploration on the reform
of teaching method of Chinese medicinal chemistry under the
“three I” bilingual teaching mode]. 中医教育 Education of
Chinese Medicine, 31(6), 24–26.
Genesee, F. (1999). Program alternatives for linguistically diverse
students. University of California, Berkeley.
Gitomer, D. H., Martínez, J. F., Battey, D., & Hyland, N. E. (2019).
Assessing the assessment: Evidence of reliability and validity in
the edTPA. American Educational Research Journal. Advance
online publication. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219890608
Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (Eds.). (2012). An introduction
to systematic reviews. Sage.
Greene, J. P. (1997). A meta-analysis of the Rossell and Baker
review of bilingual education research. Bilingual Research
Journal, 21(2–3), 103–122. http://proxy.library.ju.se/
login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62383161?ac
countid=11754
*Guo, H., Tong, F., Wang, Z., Min, Y., & Tang, S. (2018).
English-vs. Chinese-medium instruction in Chinese higher
education: A quasi-experimental comparison. Sustainability,
10(11), Article 4230.
*Guo, L., & Wang, L. (2017). 大学英汉双语教学效果的实证研
究 [An empirical study on the effect of English-Chinese bilin-
gual education]. 语言教育 Language Education, 1, 14–21.
*Guo, L., Tian, A., & Fang, Y. (2011). 运用 PBL 教学模式进行
口腔医学修复专业双语教学的探 [Discussion on bilingual
teaching of prosthodontics major using PBL model]. 卫生职业
教育 Vocational Health Education, 29(18), 57–58.
*Guo, L., Zhou, Y., Zhao, X., Mai, Z., & Tang, H. (2016). 卫生微
生物学双语教学调查研究 [Investigation on bilingual courses
of hygienic microbiology]. 卫生职业教育 Health Vocational
Education, 34(11), 112–114.
Han, J. (2017). 中医内科学双语教学改革探讨 [Research on
reform of bilingual instruction of traditional Chinese inter-
nal medicine].中国中医药现代远程教育 Modern Distance
Education of Chinese Medicine, 15(6), 43–44.
*Han, J., & Yu, L. (2007). A study to determine Chinese college
students’ English proficiency required for bilingual education.
Modern Foreign Languages, 30(1), 65–72.
Han, J. X. (2009). An empirical study on students’ academic achieve-
ments in jointly sponsored bilingual programs. Teaching English
in China, 32(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.0168
*He, L., Ma, F., Li, Y., Zhou, M., Long, P., & Gong, Y. (2016).
肾脏内科双语教学查房的实践与探索 [Practice and explora-
tion of bilingual education in nephrology]. 现代生物医学进展
Advances in Modern Biomedicine, 3, 546–549.
Tong et al. 19
*He, Y., Sun, X., Cao, J., & Yang, X. (2018). 国际化教学模式
下《道路交通安全(双语)》课程建设的探讨 [Discussion on
the course development of “traffic safety bilingual course” under
the international teaching mode]. 教育教学论坛 Education and
Teaching Forum, 13, 137–138.
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. (1997). The basic law
of the Hong Kong special administrative region of the People’s
Republic of China.
*Hou, X., & Hu, Y. (2014). 地方财经院校双语教师自主能力
现状调查与研究 [A survey of bilingual teacher autonomy
from provincial economics universities]. 科技视界 Science &
Technology Vision, 23, 31–33.
Hu, G. (2008). The misleading academic discourse on Chinese–
English bilingual education in China. Review of Educational
Research, 78(2), 195–231.
*Hu, G. (2009). Borrowing ideas across borders: Lessons from the
academic advocacy of “Chinese-English bilingual education”
in China. In J. Fegan & M. H. Field (Eds.), Education across
borders (pp. 115–136). Springer, Dordrecht.
*Hu, G., & Duan, Y. (2019). Questioning and responding in the
classroom: A cross-disciplinary study of the effects of instruc-
tional mediums in academic subjects at a Chinese university.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
22(3), 303–321.
*Hu, G., & Lei, J. (2014). English-medium instruction in Chinese
higher education: A case study. Higher Education, 67, 551–
567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9661-5
*Hu, G., & Li, X. (2017). Asking and answering questions in English-
medium instruction. In J. Zhao & Q. Dixon (Eds.), English-
medium instruction in Chinese universities: Perspectives,
discourse and evaluation, (pp. 184–203). Routledge.
*Hu, G., Li, L., & Lei, J. (2014). English-medium instruction at
a Chinese University: Rhetoric and reality. Language Policy,
13(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-013-9298-3
*Huang, Q., & Zheng., Y. (2015). 英汉双语教学结合标准化病人
在耳鼻喉科教学中的实践与评价 [Practice and evaluation of
English-Chinese bilingual teaching with standardized patients
in Ent Education]. 中国继续医学教育 China Continuing
Medical Education, 7(28), 5–6.
*Huang, Y. (2006). 高校双语教学的问题与对策 [Questions and
countermeasures of bilingual instruction in higher educa-
tion]. 医学教育探索 Chinese Journal of Medical Education
Research, 5(3), 242–244.
Hughes, R. (2008). Internationalisation of higher education and
language policy: Questions of quality and equity. Higher
Education Management and Policy, 20(1), 102–119.
Irby, B. J., Tong, F., Lara-Alecio, R., Mathes, G. P., Acosta, S., &
Guerrero, C. (2010). Quality of instruction, language of instruc-
tion, and Spanish-speaking English learners’ performance on
a state high-stakes reading assessment. TABE Journal, 12(1),
1–42.
Irby, B. J., Tong, F., Lara-Alecio, R., Meyer, D. J., & Rodriguez, L.
(2007). The critical nature of language of instruction compared
to observed practices and high-stakes tests in transitional bilin-
gual classrooms. Research in the Schools, 14, 27–36.
*Jiang, A. L., & Zhang, L. J. (2017). ESP/EAP through English-
medium instruction: Teachers’ perceptions and practices. In H.
Reinders, et al. (Eds.), Innovation in language learning and
teaching (pp. 173–195). Palgrave Macmillan.
*Jiang, J. (2004) 双语教育面面观 [The multi-faces of bilingual
education]. 天津外国语学院学报 Journal of Tianjin Foreign
Studies University, 11(1), 48–53.
*Jiang, L., Zhang, L. J., & May, S. (2016). Implementing English-
medium instruction (EMI) in China: Teachers’ practices and
perceptions, and students’ learning motivation and needs.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
11, 1–13.
*Kang, Z. (2015). 船舶与海洋工程专业双语教学” 预热—强
化” 模式的实证研究 [An empirical study on the “preheat-
ing-enhancement” model of bilingual teaching in marine and
marine engineering.]. 航海教育研究 Maritime Education
Research, 3, 56–58.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2011). English as a medium of instruction in Asian
education (from primary to tertiary): Implications for local lan-
guages and local scholarship. Applied Linguistics Review, 2,
99–120
Kirkpatrick, A. (2014). The language(s) of HE: EMI and/or
ELF and/or multilingualism? The Asian Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 1(1), 4–15.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). An application of hierarchical
kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement
among multiple observers. Biometrics, 33, 363–374.
Lasagabaster, D. (2015). Different educational approaches to bi-or
multilingualism and their effect on language attitudes. In M.
Juan-Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based lan-
guage learning in multilingual educational Environments
(pp. 13–30). Springer.
*Lei, J., & Hu, G. (2014). Is English-medium instruction effec-
tive in improving Chinese undergraduate students’ English
competence? International Review of Applied Linguistics in
Language Teaching, 52(2), 99–126.
Li, D. (2013). Linguistic hegemony or linguistic capital? Inter­
nationalization and English-medium instruction at the Chinese
university of Hong Kong. In D. Aintzane, D. Lasagabaster, &
J. M. Sierra (Eds.), English-medium instruction at universities:
Global challenges (pp. 65–83). Multilingual Matters.
*Li, H. (2011). 外语类院校双语教学和大学英语教学的资源整
合问题分析 [Analysis on the resource integration of bilingual
instruction and college English teaching in foreign language
colleges]. 经济研究导刊 Economic Research Guide, 25,
312–313.
*Li, J., Yu, Y., Zhu, H., Ma, G., & Xue, Z. (2016). 冶金工程专
业双语课程教学改革 [Reform of bilingual education in met-
allurgical engineering]. 中国冶金教育 China Metallurgical
Education, 2, 49–51.
*Li, J., & Zhang, R. (2016). 组胚实验双语教学问卷调查分析及
思考 [Analysis and thought on a survey of bilingual histology
and embryology courses]. 四川解剖学杂志 Sichuan Journal
of Anatomy, 24(1), 38–39.
*Li, M. (2017). Evaluation of learning outcomes in an education
course: Does it work? In J. Zhao & Q. Dixon (Eds.), English-
medium instruction in Chinese universities: Perspectives, dis-
course and evaluation, (pp. 184–203). Routledge.
*Li, X., Ye, D., & Sun, L. (2009).我国高校双语教学学生准入
机制再探讨—中国科大软件需求工程双语课个案研究报
告 [Revisit of the admission mechanism of Chinese college
students into bilingual courses—A case of bilingual course
in software requirements engineering in Chinese University
20 SAGE Open
of Science and Technology]. 教育与现代化 Education and
Modernization, 2, 65–75.
*Li, Y. (2012). 高校双语/EMI 课堂调查与分析 [Investigation
and analysis of bilingual/EMI classroom in higher education].
外语界 Foreign Language World, 2, 49–57.
*Lian, J., Jiang, D., Weng, X., Zheng, S., Jiang, S., Zhou, Q., &
Qi, Y. (2011). 植物生理学双教学效果研究 [Effect of bilin-
gual education in plant physiology]. 高校生物学教学研究
(电子版) Biology Teaching in Higher Education Institution
(Electronic Edition), 2, 19–22.
*Lindholm-Leary, K. (2016). Bilingualism and academic achieve-
ment in children in dual language programs. In E. Nicoladis
& S. Montanari (Eds.), Lifespan perspectives on bilingualism
(pp. 203–223). APA Books.
Liu, A. (2019). 八年制规培生双语临床教学在骨伤科应用分析
[Analysis of bilingual clinical teaching of eight-year regula-
tions in orthopedics]. 中国中医药现代远程教育 China TCM
Modern Distance Education, 7, 1.
*Liu, B., Liu, D., & Wang, L. (2016). 高分子化学双语教学改革
初探 [Bilingual teaching reform in polymer chemistry]. 广东
化工 Guangdong Chemical Industry, 2, 139–140.
*Liu, J., & Fang, F. G. (2017). Perceptions, awareness and per-
ceived effects of home culture on intercultural communica-
tion: Perspectives of university students in China. System, 67,
25–37.
*Liu, J., Zhao, X., & Zhang, Y. (2006). 我国高校双语教学研究
综述及发展展望 [Prospects of bilingual education in Chinese
universities]. 河北师范大学学报(教育科学版) Journal of
Hebei Normal University (Educational Science Edition), 8(5),
115–118.
*Liu, X., Bai, Z., Zhang, X., & Chen, G. (2012). 生物化学双语教
学问卷调查与效果评价 [Survey and evaluation of bilingual
education in biochemistry]. 高校生物学教学研究 (电子版)
Biology in Higher Education Institutions (Electronic Edition),
33, 26–30.
*Liu, Z., Luo, Y., & Hu, H. (2012). 高校双语教学实证分析 [An
empirical analysis of bilingual instruction in higher education].
中国大学教学 Chinese University Teaching, 5, 58–60.
*Liu, Z., Luo, Y., & Han, H. (2012). 高校双语教学实证分析 [The
empirical analysis of bilingual education in Chinese tertiary
schools]. 中国大学教学 Instruction of Tertiary Education in
China, 5, 58–60.
Lo, Y. Y., & Lo, E. S. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of the effec-
tiveness of English-medium education in Hong Kong.
Review of Educational Research, 84(1), 47–73. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0034654313499615
Long, X., Liu, Y., Liu, B., Sun, Q., Zhao, Y., Guo, H., & Han, X.
(2019). 妇产科学双语教学实践与思考 [Practice and thinking
on bilingual teaching in obstetrics and gynecology]. 继续医学
教育 Continuing Medical Education, 3, 23–25.
*Lu, M., & Ma, J. (2016). 基于结构方程模型的双语教学模式建
构—中外合作办学项目的例分析 [The development of bilin-
gual model using structural equation modeling —A case analy-
sis of Chinese-Foreign cooperative education program]. 常州
工学院学报 Journal of Changzhou Institute of Technology,
29(2), 70–76.
*Lu, X., Yang, S., Dong, Z., Zhou, L., & Guan, Y. (2015). 涉
外护理专业医学免疫与病原生物双语教学的探索与实践
[Teaching bilingual courses in immunology and pathogen
biology for international nursing specialty]. 中国高等医学教
育 Medical Education in Chinese Higher Education, 6, 67–68.
*Ma, G., Wang, Q., Wan, H., & Ye, H. (2016). MOOC 环境下双语教
学环境的调查和学生评体系的建立 [Investigation of instruc-
tional environment and establishment of student evaluation sys-
tem in MOOC]. 大学教育 University Education, 4, 84–85.
*Ma, Y., & Liao, Y. (2013). 普通高校双语教学实践与策略
[Practice and strategy of bilingual instruction in colleges
and universities]. 科技创新导报 Science and Technology
Innovation Herald, 20, 189–190.
Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A sys-
tematic review of English medium instruction in higher edu-
cation. Language Teaching, 51(1), 36–76. https://doi.org/doi.
org/10.1017/S0261444817000350
Mi, W. (2018). 病理生理学双语教学课程改革研究 [Research on
bilingual teaching course reform of Pathophysiology]. 中国继
续医学教育 China Continuing Medical Education, 22, 3.
Ministry of Education. (2001). 关于加强本科教学工作提高教学
质量的若干意见 [Recommendations on strengthening col-
lege undergraduate programmes and enhancing the quality of
instruction]. http://old.moe.gov.cn//publicfiles/business/html-
files/moe/moe_18/200108/241.html
Ministry of Education. (2004). A notice of piloting College English
curriculum requirement. http://www.moe.gov.cn/s78/A08/
moe_734/201001/t20100129_729.html
Ministry of Education. (2005). 关于进一步加强本科教学工作
提高教学质量的若干意见 [Recommendations on further
strengthening undergraduate programmes and the quality of
instruction]. http://old.moe.gov.cn//publicfiles/business/html-
files/moe/moe_18/200108/241.html
Ministry of Education. (2008). Introduction to the 211 Project.
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/
moe_846/200804/33122.html (In Chinese)
Ministry of Education. (2010). 关于批准2010年度双语示范课程
建设项目的通知 [The notice of 2010 bilingual demonstration
course project]. http://old.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/
htmlfiles/moe/s3850/201008/93899.html
Ministry of Education. (2011). “985 Project” brief introduction.
http://www.moe.edu.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/
s6183/201112/128828.html
Ministry of Education. (2013). About the organisation and manage-
ment of the 985 Project. http://www.moe.edu.cn/publicfiles/
business/htmlfiles/moe/s6183/201301/xxgk_146802.html (In
Chinese)
Ministry of Education. (2017). 普通高等学校本科教学工作水平
评估方案 [Evaluation standards for undergraduate education
in Chinese higher education institutions]. http://www.moe.gov.
cn/srcsite/A08/s7056/200408/t20040818_148778.html
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2010).
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-
analyses: The PRISMA statement. International Journal of
Surgery, 8(5), 336–341.
Mok, K. H. (2007). Withering the state? Globalizations, challenges
and the changing higher education governance in East Asia. In
W. T. Pink & G. W. Noblit (Eds.), International handbook of
urban education (pp. 305–320). Springer.
*Ouyang, R., & Gao, Q. (2016). 《植物造景》 课程双语教学实
践研究 [Research on the practice of bilingual instruction in
plant landscape]. 考试周刊 Examination Weekly, 78, 154.
Tong et al. 21
Palfreyman, D. M., & van der Walt, C. (Eds.) (2017). Academic
biliteracies: Multilingual repertoires on higher education.
Multilingual Matters.
*Peng, B. (2016). 高校双语教学存在的问题与对策研究 [Research
on problems and countermeasures of bilingual teaching in col-
leges and universities]. 当代教研论丛 Contemporary Teaching
and Research, 5, 89.
*Qin, D., Ye, Y., Xiong, Y., Liu, J., & Li, H. (2013). 普通医学院
校优秀本科生中开展药理双语教学的探索 [Exploration of
bilingual pharmacology education among top undergraduates
in general medical colleges].中国高等医学教育 China Higher
Medical Education, 12, 5–6.
*Qu, Q. (2015). 浸入式双语教育: 困境, 抑或转机 [Immersion
bilingual education in Chinese higher education: Challenges
or opportunities]. 宜宾学院学报 Journal of Yibin University,
15(1), 120–125.
Reljić, G., Ferring, D., & Martin, R. (2015). A meta-analy-
sis on the effectiveness of bilingual programs in Europe.
Review of Educational Research, 85(1), 92–128. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0034654314548514
Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. V. (2005). The big picture:
A meta-analysis of program effectiveness research on English
language learners. Educational Policy, 19(4), 572–594.
Scherrer, V., & Preckel, F. (2019). Development of motiva-
tional variables and self-esteem during the school career: A
meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Review of Educational
Research, 89(2), 211–258.
Silburn, S., Nutton, G., McKenzie, J., & Landrigan, M. (2011).
Early years English language acquisition and instructional
approaches for Aboriginal students with home languages
other than English: A systematic review of the Australian and
international literature. The Centre for Child Development
and Education. http://www.det.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_
file/0020/20198/MenziesReport.pdf
*Sha, B., Gao, W., Feng, H., & Jing, X. (2014). 外语渗透模式在医
学院校细胞生物学双语教学中的应用 [Application of main-
tenance bilingual cell biology courses in medical colleges]. 西
北医学教育 Northwestern Medical Education, 22(5), 907–
909.
*Shi, J., Chen, T., Li, C., Wan, Y., Han, L., & Peng, B. (2016).
双语医学机能实验学教学效果初探 [Preliminary explora-
tion on the effects of bilingual instruction in medical functional
laboratory]. 基础医学教育 Basic Medical Education, 18(6),
496–498.
*Shi, J., Zhang, J., & Shang, X. (2016). 实证旅游双语中L2 习得的
实践影响 [The practical influence of L2 acquisition in empiri-
cal tourism bilingualism]. 甘肃广播电视大学学报 Journal of
Gansu Radio and Television University, 26(1), 77–82.
Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M., & Hedges, L. V. (2019). How to do
a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and
reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-synthe-
ses. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 747–770.
Siqueira, D. S. P., Landau, J. L., & Paraná, L. A. (2018). Innovations
and challenges in CLIL implementation in South America.
Theory Into Practice, 57, 196–203. doi.org/10.1080/0040584
1.2018.1484033
Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on
language of reading instruction for English language learners.
Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 247–284.
*Sun, L., & Xiao, J. (2006). 高师本科应用双语教学的初步研究
与探索 [The preliminary research and exploration of bilingual
instruction in normal universities]. 广东第二师范学院学报
Journal of Guangdong No. 2 University of Education, 1, 69–72.
Tedick, D. J., & Cammarata, L. (2012). Content and language
integration in K–12 contexts: Student outcomes, teacher prac-
tices, and stakeholder perspectives. Foreign Language Annals,
45(s1), s28–s53.
Tierney, R. J., & Kan, W. (2016). Knowledge globalization
within and across the People’s Republic of China and the
United States: A cross-national study of internationalization
of educational research in the early 21st century. American
Educational Research Journal, 53(6), 1759–1791. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0002831216678320
Tong, F., Lara-Alecio, R., Irby, B. J., Mathes, G. P., & Kwok, O.
(2008). Accelerating early academic oral English development
in transitional bilingual and structured English immersion pro-
grams. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 1011–
1044.
Tong, F., Luo, W., Irby, B. J., Lara-Alecio, R., & Rivera, H.
(2017). Investigating the impact of professional development
on teachers’ instructional time allocation and English learners’
cognitive and academic language development: A multilevel
cross-classified approach. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 20(3), 292–313. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/13670050.2015.1051509
*Tong, F., Min, Y., Liu, Y. C., & Guo, H. (2017). Measuring self-
identity change related to English language learning and bilin-
gual education among Chinese-speaking college students: An
exploratory study. Asian Journal of Education and Training,
3(2), 135–146.
*Tong, F., & Shi, Q. (2012). Chinese-English bilingual education
in China: A case study of college science majors. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(2), 165–
182. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.607921
*Tong, F., & Tang, S. (2017). English-medium instruction in
Chinese university science classroom: An observation study. In
Q. Dixon, J. Zhao, & Y. Sun (Eds.), English-medium instruc-
tion in Chinese Universities (pp. 128–144). Routledge.
Van der Walt, C. (2017). Bi/Multilingual 21 higher education. In
W. E. Wright, S. Voun, & O. Garcia (Eds.), The handbook of
bilingual and multilingual education (pp. 354–371). Wiley-
Blackwell.
*Wang, H., Zhang, Y., Gu, Y., & Zhai, J. (2016). PBL 双语教学
法在妇产科临床见习中的应用[Application of PBL model in
the clinical practice of obstetrics and gynecology]. 中国病案
TCM Case Studies, 17(2), 70–71.
*Wang, N., & Du, L. (2012). 生态学双语 “网络互动式” 教学
模式研究 [The investigation of “interactive network” model
in bilingual ecology education]. 文教资料 Cultural and
Educational Information, 5, 187–189.
*Wang, N., Wang, T., & Jin, Y. (2015). 不同教学方法对于
本科生《 药剂学》 双语教学效果的影响 [The impact
of different approaches on teaching the bilingual course
of “Pharmaceutics” for undergraduates]. 安徽医药 Anhui
Medical and Pharmaceutical Journal, 19(3), 600–602.
*Wang, P. (2017). Understanding bilingual education: An over-
view of key notions in the literature and the implications for
Chinese university EFL education. Cambridge Journal of
22 SAGE Open
Education, 47(1), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057
64X.2015.1118439
*Wang, P., Rao, H., Tong, L., & Lin, S. (2016). 应用型大学双语
教学实践中的学生阻力探析 [An analysis of resistance from
students in application-oriented bilingual instruction in col-
leges and universities]. 吉林省教育学院学报: 上旬 Journal
of Educational Institute of Jilin Province, 9, 116–119.
*Wang, T. (2015). 基于 Web 的双语教学评价系统设计与实现
[Design and implementation of Web-based evaluation sys-
tem in bilingual education]. 科技视界 Science & Technology
Vision, 32, 16–17.
*Wang, W., & Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2019). Translanguaging
in a Chinese–English bilingual education programme:
University-classroom ethnography. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(3), 322–337.
*Wang, Z. (2016). 会计专业双语教学体系建设和教学模式
研究—以郑州轻工业学院为例 [Research on, and develop-
ment of, instructional model and system in bilingual education
with accounting majors—Taking Zhengzhou Institute of Light
Industry as an example]. 商业会计 Commercial Accounting,
6, 115–117.
*Wei, R., Feng, J., & Ma, Q. (2017). College students’ perspec-
tives on English-medium instruction and their English learning
motivational intensity. In J. Zhao & Q. Dixon (Eds.), English-
medium instruction in Chinese universities: Perspectives, dis-
course and evaluation, (pp. 184-203). Routledge.
*Werther, C., Denver, L., Jensen, C., & Mees, I. M. (2014). Using
English as a medium of instruction at university level in
Denmark: The lecturer’s perspective. Journal of Multilingual
and Multicultural Development, 35(5), 443–462.
Willig, A. C. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on the
effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of Educational
Research, 55(3), 269–317.
Wong, J. L. (2008). How does the new emphasis on managerialism
in education redefine teacher professionalism? A case study
in Guangdong Province of China. Educational Review, 60(3),
267–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910802195869
*Wu, C. (2011). 高师儿童文学课程双语教学的优势探究
[Exploration of the advantages of bilingual instruction of
children literature in normal universities]. 教育教学研究
Education and Instruction Research, 25(12), 81–83.
*Wu, Z., Zhao, J., & Zeng, G. (2017). 中英双语教学查房在血管
外科临床教学中的可行性分析 [Feasibility analysis of bilin-
gual clinical teaching of vascular surgery]. Chinese Journal of
Evidence-based Medicine, 17(6), 640–643.
*Xiao, K. (2013). 财经类高校会计专业双语教学实践—以南京
财经大学为例 [The practice of bilingual accounting courses in
colleges of finance and economics—Taking Nanjing University
of Finance & Economics as an example]. 财会通讯: 综合 (上)
Communication of Finance and Accounting, 4, 40–43.
*Xiao, X., Song, X., Song, Y., He, Y., Yang, J., & Wu, X. (2011).
公共卫生学院低年级学生双语教学调查潜在类别分
析 [The latent class analysis on survey of bilingual instruc-
tion among freshman in school of public health at Kunming
Medical University]. 昆明医学院学报 Journal of Kunming
Medical University, 32(7), 155–159.
*Xing, Q., Li, Y., & Han, X. (2012). 双语性质的PBL教学法在
麻醉学临床实习带教中的运用 [The application of bilingual
PBL method in the teaching of clinical practice in anesthesiol-
ogy]. 当代医学 Contemporarymedicine, 18(22), 163–164.
Xu, H. (2008). 中国高校双语教学七年回顾 [English-Chinese
bilingual education of higher education in China: A literature
review]. 西安外国语大学学报 Journal of Xi’an International
Studies University, 4, 84–88.
Xu, H. (2017). College students’ attitudes toward English-medium
instruction and the English language. In Q. Dixon, J. Zhao, &
Y. Sun (Eds.), English-medium instruction in Chinese univer-
sities (pp. 59–75). New York: Routledge.
Xu, J., & Fan, Y. (2017). The evolution of the college English cur-
riculum in China (1985–2015): Changes, trends and conflicts.
Language Policy, 16(3), 267–289.
*Yan, K. (2016). 双语教学的教学及实践应用研究 [Research on
the teaching and practical application of bilingual instruction].
科技风 Technology Trend, 14, 48.
*Yang, N., & Zhang, Y (2015). 国外双语教学模式在我国的
地方高校的本土化应用研究 [Application of foreign bilin-
gual teaching mode in Chinese local universities]. 海外应用
Oversea Application, 10, 10–11.
Yang, W. (2016). ESP vs CLIL: A coin of two sides or a continuum
of two extremes? ESP Today, 4(1), 43–68.
*Yang, X. (2017). Balance of content and language in English-
medium instruction classrooms. In J. Zhao & L. Q. Dixon
(Eds.), English-medium instruction in Chinese universities
(pp. 39–60). Routledge.
Yang, Y., & Qian, D. D. (2017). Assessing English reading com-
prehension by Chinese EFL learners in computerized dynamic
assessment. Language Testing in Asia, 7(1), 11.
*Yin, Y., & Chen, H. (2016). 论我国高校双语教学的改进—
基于 N 校的调查 [Improvement of bilingual education in
Chinese universities—Investigations from N university]. 黄
河科技大学学报 Journal of Huanghe S&T University, 18(1),
114–119.
*Yu, J., & Liu, Zhu. (2012). 食品专业双语教学课程设置探
讨 [The exploration of bilingual courses for food science
majors].湘南学院学报 Journal of Xiangnan University
(Medical Sciences), 4, 77–78.
*Yu, L., & Han, J. (2011). 初始英语水平对全英语双语教学效果
的影响 [The impact of initial English proficiency on the effec-
tiveness of English-medium programs]. 中国外语 Foreign
Languages in China, 3, 74–81.
Yu, W., Qiu, C., Song, W., Zhang, Y., & Cai, F. (2016). 案例药
理学双语教学在普通本科院校中的探索与体会 [Exploring
bilingual instruction in undergraduate case pharmacology
courses]. 湖北科技学院学报 Journal of Hubei University of
Science and Technology, 36(5), 111–113.
Yuan, Y. (2016). 基于慕课的翻转课堂双语教学模式研究—以 “
管理会计” 双语课程为例 [MOOCs-based flipped classroom in
bilingual education—A “managerial accounting” example]. 现
代教育技术 Modern Educational Technology, 26(10), 107–113.
*Zhan, L., Li, D., Pang, L., & Wu, W. (2016). 高校双语教学中存
在的问题与对策 [Problems and solutions of bilingual teach-
ing in colleges and universities]. 农业工程期刊 Agricultural
Engineering Technologist, 6(2), 102–104.
*Zhang, G. (2012). 《基础护理学》双语教学初探 [A prelimi-
nary study of bilingual basic nursing courses]. 科技创新导报
Science and Technology Innovation Herald, 20, 185–187.
*Zhang, H. (2012). “水工程概论” 开展双语教学的研究 [Research
on offering a bilingual course of synopsis of water engineering].
合肥工业大学学报 (社会科学版 Journal of Hefei University of
Technology (Social Sciences), 26(4), 118–121.
Tong et al. 23
*Zhang, H., & Zhang, J. (2011). 双语水平与双语经验对大学生
创造力态度的影响 [The influence of bilingual proficiency
and bilingual experiences on college students’ creativity and
attitudes]. 现代教育论丛 The Modern Education Journal, 4,
26–30.
*Zhang., L. (2016). 双语教学在社会工作专业的应用性分析 [An
analysis of bilingual teaching in social work majors]. 宜春学
院学报 Journal of Yichun College, 38(4), 117–120.
*Zhang, N., Lei, D., Yang, H., Zhang, W., & Liu, Y. (2012). 不同神
经病学双语教学模式与教学效果关系分析 [The relationship
between models and effect of bilingual neurology courses]. 中
国高等医学教育 China Higher Medical Education, 7, 69–
70+100.
*Zhang, S. (2015). 关于高校双语教学模式的思考[A reflection
on instructional models in college bilingual education]. 吕梁
学院学报 Journal of Lvlianguniversity, 5(6), 83–86.
*Zhang, X., Nan, Y., & Xie, X. (2015). 医科大学双语教学现状调
查 [An analysis of bilingual education in medical universities].
中国高等医学教育 Medical Education in Higher Education,
8, 63–64.
Zhao, J., & Dixon, L. Q. (Eds.). (2017). English-medium instruction
in Chinese universities: Perspectives, discourse and evaluation.
Routledge.
*Zhao, L., Shen, L., Pei, C., & Li, Q. (2010). 双语教学实施现状
分析与对策思考 [Survey of current implementation of bilin-
gual education in universities]. 西昌学院学报: 自然科学版
Journal of Xichang University (Social Science Edition), 4,
132–134.
Zhao, X., Du, C., Gao, J., Wang, Q., & Zhu, Y. (2016). α-脑波音
乐在中医院校生理学实验双语教学中的应用与分析 [The
analysis and application of alpha wave in bilingual instruction of
physiology experiment].光明中医 Chinese Medicine & Materia
Medica, 2, 288–289.
*Zhao, Y., Yang, Y., & Han, L. (2007). 高校计算机课程双语教学
模式研究 [Research on bilingual teaching mode of computer
science courses in institutions of higher education]. 科技信息
Technology Information, 2007(10), 18–19.
*Zhao, Y., Zhang, G., Yang, W., Kirkland, D., Han, X., & Zhang, J.
(2008). A comparative study of educational research in China
and the US. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 28(1), 1–17.
Zhao, Y., Zhang, N., & Yu, A. (2007). 普通医学高校专业课程
选用双语教材探讨 [Discussion on the selection of bilingual
textbooks for professional courses in the college of medicine].
科技创新导报 Science and Technology Innovation Herald,
33, 189–189.
Zheng, D., & Dai, W. (2013). 我国高校双语教学研究十年：回
顾与展望 [Research on bilingual instruction between 2003
and 2012 in China: Looking backward and forward]. 外语界
Foreign Language World, 154(1), 54–61.
*Zhou, E., & Ding, Q. (2012). 大学英语教学与双语教学的衔接:
现状与思考 [The connection between college English teach-
ing and bilingual teaching: Status quo and thinking]. 外语
Foreign Language World, 2012(4), 68–75, 96.
*Zhou, R. (2008). 试论高等学校法律课程双语教学 [On bilingual
teaching of law courses in colleges and universities]. 玉溪师范
学院学报 Journal of Yuxi Normal University, 24(11), 65–69.
Zhu, Y., & Yu, L. (2010). English-Chinese bilingual education
research in China. Foreign Languages and Teaching, 6, 31–36.
Zhu, Y., & Yue, L. (2010). 我国英汉双语教育研究现状 [The cur-
rent status of research on Chinese-English bilingual education
in China]. 外语与外语教学 Foreign Languages and Foreign
Language Teaching, 6, 31–36.