This article was downloaded by: [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)]

On: 31 May 2012, At: 11:32

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Asia Pacific Journal of Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cape20

Trends, issues and challenges in English language

education in Pakistan
a
Fauzia Shamim
a
Department of English, University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan

Available online: 17 Sep 2008

To cite this article: Fauzia Shamim (2008): Trends, issues and challenges in English language education in Pakistan, Asia
Pacific Journal of Education, 28:3, 235-249

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02188790802267324

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Asia Pacific Journal of Education
Vol. 28, No. 3, September 2008, 235–249

Trends, issues and challenges in English language education in Pakistan

Fauzia Shamim*

Department of English, University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan

( Received 31 October 2007; final version received 16 April 2008 )
Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 11:32 31 May 2012

This paper aims to critically examine the trends, issues and challenges in policy and practice
of English language education in Pakistan. This is done first by historically reviewing the
English language education policies since Pakistan’s independence in 1947, looking
particularly at policy objectives, implementation strategies and outcomes, and the rationale
for policy change. Second, the practice of teaching English in varied instructional settings is
described. It is found that implementation lags far behind the major policy change in 1989 for
“democratising” English. Furthermore, the consequences of using English as the medium of
instruction are discussed in the light of recent policy advisories about using English for
teaching science and mathematics from Grade 6 onwards in all Pakistani schools. Other issues
and challenges in implementing the policy of mass literacy in English are also highlighted. It is
argued that while policy decisions are driven mainly by global change forces, strategic
planning for implementation that is informed by local conditions and exigencies is necessary
for successful policy implementation. Otherwise, recent policy changes in Pakistan may be in
danger of leading to widespread illiteracy, rather than literacy, in general but particularly in
English.
Keywords: language education policy; English-medium education; post-colonial countries;
policy implementation; biliteracy; multiliteracy

Introduction
Pakistan came into being in 1947 as a multiethnic and multilingual nation state for the Muslims
as a result of the partition of the erstwhile Indian subcontinent by the British colonisers. At the
time of independence, Pakistan’s two parts – that is, East and West Pakistan – were separated
by more than 1000 miles of Indian territory. Bangla was the language of 98% of the population
in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). By contrast, West Pakistan (now Pakistan) comprised many
different ethnic groups, with at least six major languages spoken in different areas. The current
linguistic profile of the population of Pakistan by mother tongue in the four provinces of Pakistan
and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) is shown in Table 1. Over the years, Urdu,
the national language of Pakistan, which is the mother tongue of less than 8% of the population,
has gained currency as a lingua franca across all regions of Pakistan, and even in lower levels of
government administration.
Since independence, English has been associated with the ruling elite in the urban centres
and has consequently been identified as the language of power and domination. Similar to other
ex-British colonies, several efforts have been made to replace English with the national
language – in this case, Urdu. However, as we shall see below, while some progress was made in
popularising the use of Urdu during the rule of Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (1977 –1988), English

*Email: fauzia.shamim@yahoo.com

ISSN 0218-8791 print/ISSN 1742-6855 online

q 2008 National Institute of Education, Singapore
DOI: 10.1080/02188790802267324
http://www.informaworld.com
 236 F. Shamim

Table 1. Population of Pakistan by mother tongue (%).

Administrative Unit Urdu Punjabi Sindhi Pushto Balochi Saraiki others

Pakistan 7.57 44.15 14.1 15.42 3.57 10.53 4.66
NWFP* 0.78 0.97 0.04 73.9 0.01 3.86 20.43
FATA** 0.18 0.23 0.01 99.1 0.04 – 0.45
Punjab 4.51 75.23 0.13 1.16 0.66 17.36 0.95
Sindh 21.05 6.99 59.73 4.19 2.11 1.00 4.93
Balochistan 0.97 2.52 5.58 29.64 54.76 2.42 4.11
Islamabad 10.11 71.66 0.56 9.52 0.06 1.11 6.98
Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 11:32 31 May 2012

Source: Adapted from Government of Pakistan, 1998b.

* North West Frontier Province.
** Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

has retained its status as a language of the elite, including the bureaucracy and military ruling
class in Pakistan.
The current role and status of English in Pakistan is seen, in the wake of the spread of English as a
world language and as a lingua franca around the world, as beyond “any lingua franca of the past”
(Wright, 2004, p. 136). English is considered the vehicle for achieving modernisation, scientific and
technological development, and economic advancement for self and the country; in short, for
improving one’s life chances (Haque, 1993; Rahman, 2002; Shamim, 2007). Enhancing students’
proficiency in English is also an important part of the discourse of improving the quality of education
in Pakistan.
This paper argues that while language education policy decisions are driven mainly by global
change forces, strategic planning for implementation that is informed by local conditions and
exigencies is necessary for successful policy implementation. Otherwise, policy changes, such
as those that have been promoted in Pakistan for almost two decades with the aim of achieving
mass literacy in English, may be in danger of leading to widespread illiteracy (defined as
inability to read and think critically and skills for life-long learning) in general, rather than
literacy, especially in English.
I will first review the language education policies in Pakistan historically, since its
independence in 1947. Second, the practice of teaching and learning of English in Pakistani
classrooms will be described. In addition, assessment data will be used to gauge the extent of
policy implementation, particularly in the aftermath of a major policy shift in 1989 to
“democratise” English, to make the language and its associated benefits accessible to the masses.
Next, the consequences of using English as the medium of instruction will be discussed, drawing
on experiences and empirical data from Pakistan and similar contexts elsewhere. Finally, issues
and challenges in implementing the recent language education policy, which is aimed at
achieving mass literacy in English, will be highlighted. It is argued that these implementation
challenges need to be addressed before the goal of mass literacy in English can be achieved in
Pakistan.

Education system in Pakistan: the great divide1

The current education system in Pakistan is a legacy of the British colonial powers. The British
started two streams of education – English-medium and vernacular-medium – to serve their
own political ends (Rahman, 1996; Ramanathan, 2005). Even after the independence of
Pakistan, the highest-status schools catering to the elite class have continued to be English-
medium. In these schools, English is used throughout the curriculum, and Urdu (the national
language) is taught much as a foreign language (Shamim & Allen, 2000). Although these elite
 Asia Pacific Journal of Education 237

private schools are very expensive, many urban middle-class parents are willing to make huge
sacrifices to give their children an English-medium education in these schools. In fact the term
“English-medium” has become synonymous with a quality education in well-resourced schools
(Rahman, 2002). It is probably because of the symbolic value of English that during the last two
decades, the number of private non-elite English-medium schools has risen phenomenally; in
fact, they are beginning to mushroom even in far-flung and remote areas of Pakistan
(Andrabi, Das, & Khwaja, 2006; Harlech-Jones, Baig, Sajid, & ur-Rahman, 2005)2. These
schools, mainly serving the middle- and lower-income groups, profess to teach in English, often
using expensive foreign textbooks. However, the language proficiency of both the teachers and
students in these schools is rather low (Rahman, 2002; Shamim & Allen, 2000).
Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 11:32 31 May 2012

The medium of instruction in the state-owned schools, which offer free schooling, is mainly
Urdu. Some Sindhi- and Pashto-medium schools are also found in the public sector in Sindh and
the North-West Frontier Province, respectively. A few fee-paying, well-resourced schools in the
public sector, such as those administered by the federal government and cadet colleges,3
however, use English as their medium of instruction (Rahman, 2002, 2004). It is important to
note that even in the public sector, schools using Urdu or a provincial language as their medium
of instruction are considered to be low in status compared to English-medium schools.
In terms of governance, the education system of Pakistan is extremely complex. While the
responsibilities for curriculum development and textbook approval are vested in the federal
government, textbook development and assessment have traditionally been the prerogative of
the provincial textbook and examination boards. With decentralisation of the education system,
a third tier of governance structure has recently been added, at the district level. Under the
devolution scheme, the District Education Department, headed by the Executive District Officer
of Education, is responsible for school budgets, teacher recruitment and postings, in-service
teacher training, and monitoring of teaching and learning in schools (commonly known as
school inspection). These varied levels of authority, at the national, provincial and district levels,
highlight the need for extensive planning and development of a shared implementation strategy
for policy decisions taken at the federal level.

Language education policies in Pakistan: a brief historical overview

This section presents a brief historical overview of the language education policies from 1947 to
date. The language education policies of the British in the Indian subcontinent will be referred to
only briefly, as these have been well documented by others (e.g. Mahboob, 2002; Rahman,
1996). The review, though organised chronologically, aims to identify the main trends in
language education policies and their consequences in relation to the varied agendas of the ruling
elite in Pakistan. The focus will be mainly on the relative use and status of Urdu and English,
with regional languages mentioned only if they seem to affect either of these two languages.

One nation, one language (1947 – 1977)

After independence, like other post-colonial states (see Wright, 2004), a need was felt in
Pakistan for a national language to foster national unity. Urdu, the mother tongue of the
Mohajirs, who had participated in the struggle for independence and migrated from Northern
India after the partition to the urban Sindh in West Pakistan, was declared the national language
of Pakistan. This hurt the sentiments of the Bengalis and subsequently became one reason for a
separatist national movement in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) (Imam, 2005). The ruling elite
in West Pakistan were, however, able to function well in English due to prior training under the
British rule.
 238 F. Shamim

In 1958, Field Marshal Ayub Khan, an army general, took over as the head of state. The
military ruler was pro-English due to his background and openly declared his preference for
English. Later, the report of the Sharif Commission (Government of Pakistan, 1959)
recommended that the medium of instruction in primary and secondary schools in the public
sector should be changed to Urdu, while English should continue to be the medium of education
in higher education. Subsequent education policies, however, did not change the status of
English. Thus, during this time, the British policy of two streams of education, English- and
Urdu-medium, continued with the same aims, that is, to create two classes of people – the ruling
elite and the masses. In 1972, the popular government of Bhutto came to power on the basis of an
egalitarian socialist agenda. Soon after, all schools were nationalised. The constitution of 1973
Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 11:32 31 May 2012

declared Urdu as the national language and pledged to further its development; moreover, a time
frame of 15 years was set for the replacement of English by Urdu. At the same time, the
constitution recognised the linguistic rights of speakers of regional and minority languages by
allowing the provincial governments freedom to develop their languages.

Revitalisation of Urdu as the language of Muslim identity (1978 – 1988)

When General Zia-ul-Haq took over the government in a military coup in 1977, there was a
revival of Urdu as “one of the unifying symbols of the Pakistan movement” (Haque, 1993, p. 13)
and as “the language of Muslim unity in the making” (Rahman, 1996, p. 230). The linking of
Islam and Urdu led to “urduization and Islamization” policies (Rahman, 1996, p. 240). In 1979,
all schools (except cadet colleges and some elitist schools) were asked to adopt Urdu as the
language of instruction from Grade 1. It was announced that school-leaving board examinations
would be conducted in Urdu from 1989, thus completing the change-over to Urdu over a period
of 10 years. However, the decision was reversed in 1989, ostensibly due to parental demand
(Mahboob, 2002). In 1979, the National Language Authority (Muqtadira Urdu Zaban) was
established for the development of Urdu. During Zia’s regime, Urdu began to be used more often
in official circles (meetings, parliament and public speeches). At the same time, however, the use
of English as the medium of instruction was being promoted in the growing private sector
(Blundell, 1989; British Council, 1986).
It is important to note that the first constitution of Pakistan, adopted on 12 April 1973,
allowed the use of English for official purposes “until arrangements are made for its replacement
by Urdu” (Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Article 251). However, the use of English as an
official language has continued over the years for various reasons.

Democratisation of English (1989 – 1999)

The period from 1989– 1999 in the history of Pakistan is characterised by political turmoil and
successive changes of governments – two elected prime ministers, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz
Sharif. Soon after assuming power in 1989, Benazir announced that English would be taught in
all schools from Grade 1 (it was previously taught from Grade 4 in public sector schools). This
policy was hurriedly launched through a government notification, with no well-defined
implementation strategies, in order to gain political favour from the masses. Not surprisingly,
little effort was made by the educational planners and school leaders in public sector schools to
go beyond introducing English as a formality, mainly to show compliance to orders. The next
government, Nawaz Sharif’s, had an ambivalent attitude towards language issues. These were
thus not included in the education policy of 1998– 2010 (Government of Pakistan, 1998a).
However, government support for private English-medium schools continued, along with their
mushrooming growth all over Pakistan. strategue
s and not

impleme
nt
 Asia Pacific Journal of Education 239

English as the language of development (1999 to date)

General Musharraf assumed power in October 1999 through a military coup. Musharraf’s
pro-American policies embodied in his support for anti-terrorist activities, modernisation and
“enlightened moderation” in religion replaced the more fundamentalist, right-wing policies of
Zia-ul-Haq’s 11 years of dictatorship. This government’s pro-English stance is evident in
various statements by government officials. For example, Zubeda Jalal, a former Federal
Minister of Education, while talking to a large gathering of English language teachers,
emphasised the need for teaching English as “an urgent public requirement”. She also reiterated
that teaching of English will start from Grade 1, adding a slight qualification, “where teachers
are available” (Jalal, 2004, p. 25).
Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 11:32 31 May 2012

It is important to note that since 1989, the pro-English stance of successive governments has
not been formally articulated in a language education policy for wider sharing and discussion.
More importantly, no implementation strategies have been put in place to translate these largely
unwritten policy statements into practice in schools in Pakistan. This perhaps explains the need
felt by the Musharraf government to reiterate its pro-English stance, from time to time over the
past few years, as the language of and for development (Shamim, 2007). Once again, however,
there have been few concerted efforts to make English accessible to the masses.4
A review of the history of language education policies in Pakistan reveals that from the time
independence was gained until 1988, nation-building and development of a Muslim identity
have been the prime motivations for the spread of Urdu in Pakistan. In 1989, a major policy
change was initiated, to introduce English in the early years, that is, from Grade 1 instead of
Grade 4, in public sector schools. The aim was to provide literacy in English to the masses for
levelling social inequalities. Subsequently, English has been promoted for purposes of
individual and national development. This shift towards democratising English is also evident in
the recent revised white paper on education:
English should be made a compulsory subject, starting from class I, in all public schools. Such
compulsory education of English should only start after suitably qualified teachers for English
language are available to staff positions in all primary schools of the country to ensure that the
benefit is assured to all the citizens, and not just the elite. (Aly, 2007, p. 54, emphasis added)
In addition, the White Paper recommends the use of English as medium of instruction for
teaching mathematics and science from Grade 6 in all public sector schools. The potential
consequences of this decision will be analysed in a later section.
Language education policy cannot be analysed without examining how it is translated into
practice at the classroom level. Hence, in the following section, I will briefly describe the
teaching and learning of English in various school classrooms in Pakistan. Empirical evidence
about the learning levels of children in English will also be shared.

Teaching and learning of English in Pakistan

Profiles of teaching and learning of English in the classroom
Brief descriptions of the teaching and learning of English in Pakistan can be found in
unpublished reports (e.g. British Council, 1986) as well as in published works (e.g. Blundell,
1989; Mansoor, 2005; Rahman, 2002). In addition, a few in-depth studies of English language
teaching at the classroom level have been conducted both in schools and higher education
institutions in Pakistan (Shamim, 1993, 2006; Shamim & Allen, 2000).
Shamim (1993) studied the teaching and learning of English in English as a Second
Language (ESL) classes of varying sizes in government and non-elite private secondary schools
in Pakistan. Findings revealed that teachers mainly concentrated on “doing a lesson” or “doing
 240 F. Shamim

grammar”, irrespective of class size. “Doing a lesson” mainly comprised a predictable set of
activity types: reading the text (lesson) aloud by the teacher and/or the students; explaining the
text, often in Urdu or the local language, giving the meanings of “difficult words” in English
and/or Urdu/the local language; and getting the students to do follow-up textbook exercises in
their notebooks. This is illustrated in the following classroom vignette.
The teacher tells the students to open their textbooks on page 64 and take out their copies [notebooks] to
write “words meanings”. She writes the title of the lesson (a fairly long reading passage in the textbook
followed by comprehension questions and unrelated grammar exercises) on the blackboard. First, a few
students are nominated to read parts of the text aloud. Then the teacher reads it out loud, stopping
occasionally to explain and/or write the meaning of a “difficult” word on the blackboard in Urdu. This
Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 11:32 31 May 2012

continues till the end of the class hour. During this time the students sit passively, with their heads down,
apparently listening to the teacher and copying mechanically from the blackboard.
The same procedure is followed in the next class, the only difference being that the teacher reads out
the text herself. The third class is devoted to doing the exercises following the text. The teacher reads
out the questions, often translating them into Urdu. If the selected students cannot answer a question
correctly, the teacher provides the answer herself, which the students mark in their textbooks.
The students are told to copy down the “question-answers” in their “fair copies” for homework.
(Adapted from Shamim, 1993, pp. 187–88)
Similarly, “doing grammar” comprised teaching and learning of a grammar item (with a focus
on form only), and writing essays, letters, and so forth. A teacher explained her teaching of
grammar items as follows:
If we want to teach articles, I make a table to explain different kinds of articles. I also use a table to
teach tenses. In this way they understand better. It’s like maths. For example, I teach present tense
through brackets. I make them [students] draw these even in their copies . . . Then they do exercises –
10 to 12 sentences in class; then more sentences are given to do at home. (Shamim, 1993, p. 193)
The majority of teachers, particularly in schools where the students’ and teachers’ proficiency of
English was relatively low, dictated a set of essays and letters or wrote them on the blackboard
for the students to copy in their notebooks. The students learned these by heart and reproduced
them in the examination.
Subsequently, Shamim and Allen (2000) studied the activity types and patterns of interaction
in English and Urdu language classrooms in varied instructional settings (primary/secondary,
rural/urban, public/private) in Pakistan using an adapted version of the Communicative
Orientation of Language Teaching (COLT) observation scheme, originally developed in Canada
(Spada & Frohlich, 1995). The data revealed that teaching and learning of English was carried
out in broadly similar ways in the different instructional settings studied. For example, all
classrooms observed were dominated by whole-class teacher-led activities. Also, there was a
focus on formal aspects of the language at both primary and secondary levels. Most of the time,
the teachers controlled topic selection, either of their own or based on the textbook. While
extensive use of the blackboard was observed, there was minimal use of any other visual aids.
However, despite these similarities in teaching and learning practices, a great deal of
diversity was noted across different settings in the extent of English, Urdu or local languages
used by teachers and students in their classroom discourse. Teachers and the students in elite
private English-medium schools were found to use English only. In contrast, Urdu and/or the
local language was the dominant classroom language in the government Urdu-medium schools.
Varied levels of code-switching between English, Urdu and the local languages were observed in
the non-elite private schools. These profiles of teaching and learning of English in Pakistani
school classrooms indicate that the practice of teaching English in all school types in Pakistan
leaves much to be desired with regard to current principles and practice of English language
teaching.
 Asia Pacific Journal of Education 241

Learning and achievement in English

In terms of learning and achievement in general, and in English in particular, the findings of a
recent study of primary school children (Das, Pandey, & Zanjonc, 2006) seem to be significant in
evaluating the impact of the policy shift in Pakistan in 1989 to provide the masses with greater
access to English. The study, based on test scores, revealed that the English proficiency level of
Grade 3 students in public and private sector schools in rural Pakistan was very low (similar to
learning levels in Urdu and mathematics, which were also included in the study). More
specifically,
Most children (86 percent) could recognize and write an alphabet when spoken and 70 percent could
Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 11:32 31 May 2012

fill in a blank alphabet in a sequence (D_F) but less than 50 percent could complete basic words like
BALL or FLAG when given a picture or asked to fill in 2 blanks (BA_ _) or a single blank (FLA_).
(p. 12)
The test results further indicated that constructing more complicated words and sentences, as
well as paragraph comprehension, were concepts “too advanced for 90 percent of the children
tested”. Overall, a “dramatic difference in scores between public and private schools” was
observed (p. 17); these gaps were found to be largest for English, where “the difference between
children in private and government schools is twelve times as large as the difference
between children from poor and non-poor households after controlling for observed differences
amongst children” (p. 4, original emphasis). While we need to consider the children’s learning
and achievement in English in the overall context of relatively low achievement levels in other
subjects, it seems that the aim of various governments to democratise English has not been
achieved in the private schools serving the middle- and low-income groups in general, and the
public sector Urdu-medium schools in particular.
Observation reveals that learners in relatively high-income English-medium schools are
more fluent in English than those in the non-elite private schools, probably due to the difference
in the range of opportunities available for them to learn and use English both in school and in
their homes and communities outside. More importantly, the graduates of elite English-medium
schools, who are more fluent in English, have higher career prospects than their counterparts
from other school types (Mansoor et al., 2005; Rahman, 2004).5
To conclude, though the 1973 constitution stated clearly that English will be replaced by
Urdu within a fixed time frame of 15 years, there have been few systematic attempts at corpus
and status planning for the development of Urdu. In fact, throughout this time, English has
continued to enjoy the status of a language of prestige and economic advancement and
prosperity for the elite in Pakistani society. More importantly, English-medium institutions have
been allowed to flourish, often through government support, thus further widening the gap
between Urdu- and English-medium streams of education, and the haves and the have-nots in
Pakistan (Rahman, 2004). Hence, while a major policy shift was initiated to “democratise”
English, successful implementation of this policy has not been evident in teaching and learning
practices and in children’s English learning levels, in either non-elite private English-medium or
government Urdu-medium schools.

English as medium of instruction6

The recent White Paper on education in Pakistan recommends that, “For all college education in
sciences and technology and for all university education, English should be the medium
of instruction, in addition to its similar use for teaching of science and mathematics in secondary
and middle schools” (Aly, 2007, p. 54). This necessitates an examination of the consequences of
English-medium education for children in Pakistan. While there are relatively few empirical
 242 F. Shamim

studies of classroom discourse and its effects on learning in subject classrooms in Pakistan, the
negative consequences of using English as the medium of instruction have been well
documented in the literature (e.g. Brock-Utne, 2000; Tollefson & Tsui, 2004). I will therefore
discuss them only briefly in this section.
Medium of instruction has been identified as one of the best ways of status planning for the
widespread use or dominance of one language.
Medium of instruction policy determines which social and linguistic groups have access to political
and economic opportunities, and which groups are disenfranchised. It is therefore a key means of
power (re) distribution and social (re) construction, as well as a key arena in which political conflicts
among countries and ethnolinguistic, social and political groups are realized. (Tollefson & Tsui,
Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 11:32 31 May 2012

2004, p. 2)
Using English as the medium of instruction in multilingual contexts, such as in Pakistan, may
lead to many negative consequences, such as “linguistic genocide” of other local/regional and
minority languages (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2006).7 Moreover, there are cognitive and educational
consequences of learning concepts in English, which is often the third or fourth language of
children in Pakistan. Inadequate proficiency in English encourages the teachers and learners to
cope by using strategies such as code-switching in the classroom, and discourages the use of
inquiry-based approaches for teaching and learning.
In Pakistan, it is observed that policy-making for language education is driven mainly by
widely held popular beliefs about a causal link between English-medium education and quality
of teaching and learning. This may be due to the paucity of research, particularly on classroom
discourse and its effects on learning in English-medium schools in Pakistan. An exception is
Halai’s recent work on the learning of mathematics in multilingual classrooms (Halai, 2007; in
press). In an in-depth study of learner discourse during co-operative group work on
mathematical tasks, Halai found that learners regularly used code-switching and translation to
make sense of tasks presented in English. The use of bilingual discourse as a compensatory
strategy in classes where English, a language that neither the students nor the teachers are
proficient in, is also prevalent in similar contexts elsewhere (Annamalai, 2004; Arthur, 2001;
Brock-Utne & Holmarsdottir, 2003). Similarly, translation is used by teachers in African
classrooms, even up to Grade 7, to mediate between the English text and learners with low
proficiency in the language (Brock-Utne & Holmarsdottir, 2003, p. 91).
Arthur (2001) reports another coping strategy in English-medium African classrooms,
namely, the use of teacher-centred routines to give a semblance of teaching in English.
Similarly, the findings of Watson-Gegeo and Gegeo (1995) highlight how education in the
Solomon Islands, where English is used as the medium of instruction but spoken by only a few
people, “becomes the presentation of ‘school knowledge’ in simplified bits of unrelated
information packaged in ritualized lesson formats” (p. 68). These studies support earlier findings
(Shamim, 1993) about the use of lesson rituals in language classrooms in Pakistan. Such a
didactic approach to teaching does not allow for students’ participation in knowledge
construction. However, the use of inquiry-oriented approaches in subject classrooms such as
mathematics places a heavy demand on learners’ (and teachers’) linguistic abilities (Halai, 2007;
in press). The linguistic inadequacy of teachers and learners in English, the “official” language
of instruction, may lead them to resist the use of participatory approaches and/or inquiry-based
learning, which may eventually have a damaging effect on the teaching and learning of concepts
and on critical thinking.8 Moreover, it may lead to “illiteracy” in general, as children will not be
able to perform well in any language, be it English, Urdu or a regional language.
English is often promoted as the medium of instruction to achieve quality in education.
Tollefson and Tsui (2004) argue, rightly in my view, that:
 Asia Pacific Journal of Education 243

Because medium-of-instruction policy is an integral part of educational policy, debates surrounding

it necessarily pertain to educational efficacy. All too often, policy makers put forward an educational
agenda that justifies policy decisions regarding the use and/or prohibition of a particular language or
languages. Yet, behind the educational agenda are political, social, and economic agendas that serve
to protect the interests of particular political and social groups. (p. 2)
In Pakistan, as mentioned earlier, there exist major disparities in educational opportunities for
children in different school types.9 In this context, raising the quality of education for all is a
major argument used to support English-medium education. The assumption seems to be that by
changing the medium of instruction, key variables for achieving quality in education, such as the
quality of teachers and learners and teaching and learning processes (UNICEF, 2000), will
Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 11:32 31 May 2012

somehow take care of themselves. This view is commonly held despite growing research
evidence about the positive effects of mother-tongue education on student learning outcomes
(see, e.g. Nekatibeb, 2007).10 We need to remember that the majority of children in Pakistan
study in non-elite private English-medium or Urdu-medium government schools,11 where the
teachers’ limited proficiency in English in turn limits the use of English as a language of
communication in the classroom. What makes matters worse is that in these schools, where
neither the students nor the teachers are very good at English, the teachers encourage rote
learning of answers; for example, essays are dictated to the students for examination purposes
(Shamim, 1993; Shamim & Allen, 2000). This “devoicing” of the students (Ramanathan, 2005),
instead of raising educational standards, may lead to lower levels of literacy in English but also,
more generally, in other subject areas taught through the medium of English.

Mass literacy in English: is there a choice?

English has been variously described in recent years as a “tyrannosaurus rex” (Swales, 1997), as
a “Trojan horse” (Cooke, 1988, cited in Pennycook, 1995, p. 39), and as the “gatekeeper to
positions of prestige in society” (Pennycook, 1995, p. 40). Today, it seems to be an undisputed
fact that “English is integral to the globalization processes that characterize the contemporary
post – Cold War phase of aggressive casino capitalism, economic restructuring, McDonaldization
and militarization on all continents” (Phillipson, 2001, p. 187). However, as Phillipson recommends,
in analysing the spread of English, “the bottom line is whose interests English serves” (p. 187).
In Pakistan, English has traditionally been used by the ruling elite as a gatekeeper for entry into
prestigious public sector organisations such as the army and the civil services, and for high-
paying jobs in the growing number of foreign banks and multinational companies in the country
(Mansoor et al., 2005; Rahman, 2002). In recent years, there has been evidence of the increased
use of English as a gatekeeper for entry into quality state-funded and private higher education
institutions (Shamim & Qureshi, 2007). Thus a pertinent question to ask may be: with the
widespread use of English in international communication and as “a gatekeeper for movement
between countries” (Pennycook, 1995, p. 41), do we in Pakistan have a choice not to use English
for international communication, politics, trade and commerce, military links and so forth?
Pennycook’s (1995) problematising of “the notion of choice and the assumption that individuals
and countries are somehow free of economic, political and ideological constraints” (p. 40) is
helpful in considering the future role of English in Pakistan. As the choice of individual nation
states such as Pakistan is limited by constraints at both global and national levels (Wright, 2004),
it seems unwise to try to reverse the current trend of democratisation of English in Pakistan.
However, it is important to critically analyse the issues and challenges in implementing this
policy and its implications for our children’s future life chances.
Like many other ex-colonies, such as Tanzania (Arthur, 2001; Brock-Utne & Holmarsdottir,
2003) and Hong Kong (Tsui, 2004), language choice and choice of medium of instruction
 244 F. Shamim

in Pakistan is governed by extra-linguistic considerations (Mahboob, 2002; Mansoor, 2005;

Rahman, 1996). English is projected as the language of individual and national development
(Shamim, 2007), and a universal tool for access to opportunities for levelling social inequalities
(Tsui, 2005). The pro-English stance of various Pakistani governments since 1989 seems to be in
contrast with the majority of post-colonial states, where “small English-speaking elites have
continued the same policies of the former colonizers, using access to English language education
as a crucial distributor of social prestige and wealth” (Pennycook, 1995, p. 40). However, a
closer look at the teaching and learning of English in Pakistani classrooms and the English
proficiency level of primary school children above reveals that the promised access to English
may not become a reality for the majority of children studying in the non-elite English-medium
Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 11:32 31 May 2012

and Urdu-medium schools. A similar gap between the official language policy and the reality
of classroom teaching and learning has also been noted in other contexts in Asia and Africa
(e.g. Arthur, 2001; Brock-Utne & Holmarsdottir, 2003; Taylor, 2002). Thus it seems that, that
while policy decisions in the twenty-first century may be influenced by global change forces,
local conditions and exigencies mainly drive policy implementation. This underscores the need
for an analysis of possible issues and challenges in implementing the current language education
policy in Pakistan, assuming that there is political will for developing increased levels of literacy
in English.

Issues and challenges

Issues such as the lack of trained teachers proficient in the English language and of relevant
learning materials have been identified in many official documents (see, e.g. Aly, 2007; Jalal,
2004). In addition, there are at least three factors that seem to militate against the successful
implementation of the current language education policy in Pakistan: the “great divide” based on
social class and manifested in two streams of education, Urdu- and English-medium, in
Pakistan’s education system; lack of a shared implementation plan with sustainable strategies;
and the absence of a well-defined national language policy. These factors will be discussed
briefly in this section.
As shared earlier, schools in Pakistan differ not only in the extent to which English is used in
the classroom but more importantly in the quantity and quality of resources, including human
resources, allocated for teaching and learning (Rahman, 2002, 2004). As discussed above,
evidence from Pakistan and other post-colonial states points to the dismal state of both the
teaching and learning of English and of other content subjects using English as the medium of
instruction, a language in which both teachers and learners lack adequate proficiency. A major
challenge is therefore to, first, devise ways and means of providing equal opportunities for
learning English (and other subjects) to the vast majority of children studying in the non-elite
private English-medium or Urdu-medium government schools in Pakistan, as are available to the
children in elite English-medium schools.
Second, there is no shared implementation plan with sustainable strategies for acquisition
planning of English (Cooper, 1989). A review of the current and planned work in the five policy
areas identified by Kaplan and Bauldauf (1997) as necessary for successful implementation of
language education policies12 reveals that much of the work such as curriculum development is
being undertaken through donor-funded projects located in the Federal Ministry of Education.
As there is a history of non-sustainability of externally “imposed” donor-funded projects in
Pakistan (e.g. Shamim, 2006), chances are that the current measures for implementation of the
new curriculum will be abandoned at the first opportunity. Hence, another challenge for
successful policy implementation is to develop sustainable implementation strategies shared
 Asia Pacific Journal of Education 245

across the three decision-making and administrative layers – that is, federal, provincial and
district – in school education in Pakistan.
Third, the current language education policy is not situated within a shared national language
policy but embodied mainly in statements of government officials, government notifications
issued from time to time, and consultative documents such as the recently published White Paper
on education. This may lead to disconnected and fragmented implementation efforts at different
levels of education in Pakistan. Hence the need for a well-defined language education policy,
located within a national language policy, cannot be overemphasised. However, the
development of a widely accepted national language policy in Pakistan’s multilingual context
may pose a big challenge for present and future governments, particularly as language
Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 11:32 31 May 2012

hierarchies are often linked to power relationships in such contexts (Arthur, 2001).
The above discussion indicates that a universalistic orientation to English without a
concomitant change in the disparity of children’s educational opportunities in different school
types, and lack of shared and sustainable implementation strategies located within an explicitly
defined language policy, may lead to higher levels of illiteracy rather than increased literacy in
English. This situation is comparable to that in many African countries and India, where “the
medium of instruction becomes a further cause of failure in schools” (Annamalai, 2004, p. 188).

Conclusion and recommendations

The aim of this paper was to present a critical analysis of language education policies and
practices in Pakistan. Drawing on the available evidence, I have argued that the current language
education policy may not achieve its aim of making English widely accessible to the masses for
their personal and national development while the education system in Pakistan, bifurcated
linguistically and based on class divisions, continues to exist. More importantly, advocacy for an
English-medium education in Pakistan in the absence of any acquisition planning for literacy in
English (and learning of other subject areas) may lead to lower levels of literacy in general, and
in English in particular.
The disadvantages of using English as the medium of education in post-colonial countries
are well documented. Despite this, in Pakistan, the advantages that may accrue as a result of an
English-medium education are advocated for individual and national development. For example,
the “educational efficacy” argument (Pennycook, 1995) links English-medium education with
an increase in the quality of education, and with it children’s future life chances, despite growing
evidence to the contrary. Vavrus (2002) argues, rightly in my view, that:
Being aware of the sociopolitics of English does not mean that one must necessarily abandon the
teaching of English in post-colonial countries because of fears of reproducing social inequalities;
instead, this awareness should heighten one’s ongoing cultural critique of language and development
of policies for individuals and societies in specific contexts. (p. 394)
I therefore agree with Pennycook that:
as long as English remains intimately linked to the discourses that endure the continued domination
of some parts of the globe by others, an oppositional programme other than one that seeks only to
limit access to English will be necessary. (1995, p. 55, emphasis added)
This view seems to be reflected in recent recommendations for bi/multilingualism policy in
Pakistan and similar contexts elsewhere (Clegg, 2007; Imam, 2005; Korth & Schulter, n.d.;
Mahboob, 2002; Mansoor, 2005; Shamim, 2007; UNESCO, 2003). However, a more pluralist
approach to language planning and policy, similar to the one undertaken in post-apartheid South
Africa, with a focus on learning at least four languages – the mother tongue and provincial
language for local/regional communication; and Urdu and English for intranational and
 246 F. Shamim

international communication, respectively – may present a range of implementation challenges,

in addition to those noted above.
While “it is too soon to predict the outcome of the South African language-planning
endeavor” (Webb, 2004, p. 237), I believe that implementing a pluralist language education
policy in less developed and developing countries such as Pakistan will be very challenging due
to their highly complex linguistic, educational, social and political contexts. This indicates the
need for further research to develop an ecologically valid model for bi/multiliteracy
(Hornberger, 2002) for these contexts. In addition, shared and sustainable implementation
strategies located within a well-defined language policy are required at the federal, provincial
and district levels for developing mass literacy in English (and other languages) in Pakistan.
Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 11:32 31 May 2012

It must be noted that until now, no concerted efforts have been made to improve the context and
conditions for achieving mass literacy in English in Pakistan. For example, no steps have been
taken at the government level to address the issues of resource distribution and teachers’
proficiency levels in English to improve the teaching and learning of English in different school
types. Interestingly, however, the number of English language teachers’ education programmes
has increased considerably during the last decade or so. This suggests that there is a felt need for
qualified English language teachers in Pakistan. The Society of Pakistan English Language
Teachers (SPELT) is also making efforts to improve the teaching and learning of English at all
levels in Pakistan (for details, visit http://www.spelt.org).
To conclude, language education polices that have been developed mainly on the basis of
extra-linguistic considerations, and poorly implemented, may lead to increased levels of
illiteracy in general, but especially in English. This could result in disempowering the masses
further by limiting their access to the projected benefits of an English language education.
Brock-Utne (2000) asserts that even “the concept of ‘education for all’ becomes a completely
empty concept if the linguistic environment of the basic learners is not taken into account”
(p. 141). Hence, the urgent need for developing a viable model for bi/multiliteracy and shared
implementation strategies in Pakistan cannot be overemphasised.

Notes
1. The two streams of educations, namely, Urdu- and English-medium, in the Pakistan’s education
system have been highlighted by Blundell (1989), amongst others, who refers to this phenomenon as
“the great divide”.
2. According to the latest figures from the Ministry of Education (2005– 2006), the number of students
enrolled in private schools is approximately half of all student enrolments in schools in the public
sector (figures available from Government of Pakistan, Statistics Division web site: http://www.
statpak.gov.pk).
3. Cadet colleges are well resourced state-funded “elitist” residential schools (Rahman, 2004,
pp. 54 – 56).
4. Recently, a new English curriculum was developed for Grades 1 – 12 by the Ministry of Education
(available at http://www.moe.gov.pk). However, there is no shared strategy for the implementation of
major innovations embodied in the curriculum document, such as using benchmarks and student
learning outcomes for teaching and learning of English at all levels of schooling. The Higher
Education Commission also launched an English Language Teaching Reforms Project in 2004 under
the auspices of the National Committee of English. Other recent measures for improving the proficiency
of university graduates include an increase in the duration of credit-bearing courses in English language in
the newly introduced four-year undergraduate programme (see http://www.hec.gov.pk).
5. As the rise of private schooling in Pakistan is a relatively recent phenomenon, employment figures for
graduates from different school types are not available as yet.
6. Data regarding medium of instruction reveals that English is the medium of education in only 1.4% of
educational institutions in the public sector. For details, see the National Education Census
(Government of Pakistan, 2005).
 Asia Pacific Journal of Education 247

7. Mansoor (1993) reports that Punjabi college students show a preference for using Urdu or English
with friends and family.
8. Lord Macaulay stated that the aim of education in India was to create “a class of sahibs who would be
brown in colour but English in all other aspects” (Hoodbhoy, 1998, p. 7).
9. Schools in Pakistan can be placed on a cline according to their fee structure and associated facilities
for teaching and learning as well as in terms of teachers’ and learners’ levels of proficiency in English
(for details, see Shamim & Allen, 2000).
10. Nekatibeb (2007), in a recent study of the impact on achievement of learning through the mother
tongue on Grade 8 students in Ethiopia, found that “the language of instruction is the second strongest
variable which explains variation in student achievement” (p. 76).
11. “In 2000, 35 percent of children enrolled in schools at the primary level were in private schools, and
this number falls by a third for middle and high schools to 25 percent. Private schooling in Pakistan at
Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 11:32 31 May 2012

the primary level is large, widespread and increasing over time” (Andrabi, Das & Khwaja, 2006, p. 3).
It must be noted that despite a phenomenal increase in private schooling in Pakistan during the last
few years, the government remains the largest provider of education in Pakistan. Also, casual
observation reveals that the number of children studying in high-income elite private English-medium
schools, located mainly in the urban centres, is very small relative to the total number of school
enrolments in Pakistan.
12. These five language-in-education implementation areas are: curriculum policy, personnel policy,
materials policy, community policy, and evaluation policy (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997, pp. 124,
127– 139).

References
Aly, J.H. (2007, February). Education in Pakistan: A white paper (revised). Available from the Pakistan
Ministry of Education. Retrieved March 11, 2007, from http://www.moe.gov.pk
Andrabi, T., Das, J., & Khwaja, A.I. (2006). A dime a day: The possibilities and limits of private schooling
in Pakistan (World Bank policy research working paper 4066). Retrieved February 10, 2008, from the
World Bank Web site: http://www.wds.worldbank.org
Annamalai, E. (2004). Medium of power: The question of English in education in India. In J.W. Tollefson
& A.M.B. Tsui (Eds.), Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda? Whose agenda? (pp. 177– 194).
London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Arthur, J. (2001). Perspectives on educational language policy and its implementation in African
classrooms: A comparative study of Botswana and Tanzania. Compare, 31, 347– 362.
Blundell, P. (1989). Language barriers. Education, 173, 354– 355.
British Council. (1986). English teaching profile: Pakistan. London: British Council, English Language
and Literature Division. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED274160.
Brock-Utne, B. (2000). Whose education for all? The recolonization of the African mind. London: Falmer
Press.
Brock-Utne, B., & Holmardotti, H.B. (2003). Language polices and practices: Some preliminary results
from a research project in Tanzania and South Africa. In B. Brock-Utne, Z. Desai, & M. Qonno (Eds.),
Language of instruction in Tanzania and South Africa (pp. 80 – 101). Dar-es-Salam: E & D Limited.
Clegg, J. (2007). Moving towards bilingual education in Africa. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Language and
development: Africa and beyond (pp. 49 – 64). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: British Council.
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. (1973). Retrieved March 13, 2006, from the UNESCO
web site: http://www.unesco.org
Cooke, D. (1988). Ties that constrict: English as a Trojan horse. In A. Cumming, A. Gagne, & J. Dawson
(Eds.), Awareness: Proceedings of the 1987 TESL Ontario Conference (pp. 52 –62). Toronto, Canada:
TESL Ontario.
Cooper, R.L. (1989). Language planning and social change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Das, J., Pandey, P., & Zajonc, T. (2006). Learning levels and gaps in Pakistan (World Bank policy research
working paper 4067). Retrieved February 10, 2008, from the World Bank web site: http://www.wds.
worldbank.org
Government of Pakistan. (1959). Report of the Sharif commission on national education. Karachi, Pakistan:
Ministry of Education.
Government of Pakistan. (1998a). National education policy. Islamabad, Pakistan: Ministry of Education.
Government of Pakistan. (1998b). Population by mother tongue [Data from 1998 census]. Retrieved June 2,
2008, from Statistics Division, Population Census Organization web site: http://www.statpak.gov.pk/
depts/pco/statistics/other_tables/pop_by_mother_tongue.pdf
 248 F. Shamim

Government of Pakistan. (2005). National education census. Retrieved June 2, 2008, from Statistics
Division, Federal Bureau of Statistics web site: http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/fbs/publications/
nec2005/nec2005.html
Halai, A. (2007). Learning mathematics in English-medium classrooms in Pakistan: Implications for policy
and practice. Bulletin of Education and Research, 29(1), 1 –16.
Halai, A. (in press). Politics and practice of learning mathematics in multilingual classrooms: Issues for
policy and practice. In R. Barwell (Ed.), Multilingualism in mathematics classrooms. London:
Multilingual Matters.
Haque, A.R. (1993). The position and status of English in Pakistan. In R. Baumgardner (Ed.), The English
language in Pakistan (pp. 13 –18). Karachi, Pakistan: Oxford University Press.
Harlech-Jones, B., Baig, M., Sajid, S., & ur-Rahman, S. (2005). Private schooling in the Northern Areas
Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 11:32 31 May 2012

of Pakistan: A decade of rapid expansion. International Journal of Educational Development,

25, 557– 568.
Hoodbhoy, P. (1998). Education and the state: Fifty years of Pakistan. Karachi, Pakistan: Oxford
University Press.
Hornberger, N.H. (2002). Multilingual language policies and the continuaa of biliteracy: An ecological
approach. Language Policy, 1, 27 – 51.
Imam, S.R. (2005). English as a global language and the question of nation-building education in
Bangladesh. Comparative Education, 41, 471– 486.
Jalal, Z. (2004). Language policy in Pakistan. In S. Mansoor, S. Meraj, & A. Tahir (Eds.), Language
planning, policy and practice: A South-Asian perspective (pp. 23 – 26). Karachi, Pakistan: Aga Khan
University & Oxford University Press.
Kaplan, R.B., & Baldauf, R.B., Jr. (1997). Language planning: From practice to theory. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Korth, B., & Schulter, B. (n.d.). Multilingual education for increased interethnic understanding in
Kyrgyzstan. Retrieved January 10, 2006, from http://www.cimera.ch/files/biling/en/MLG_Text1.pdf
Mahboob, A. (2002). No English, no future: Language policy in Pakistan. In S. Obeng & B. Hartford (Eds.),
Political independence with linguistic servitude: The politics about language in the development world
(pp. 15 – 40). New York: NOVA Science.
Mansoor, S. (1993). Punjabi, Urdu, English in Paksitan: A sociolinguistic study. Lahore, Pakistan:
Vanguard.
Mansoor, S. (2005). Language planning in higher education: A case study. Karachi, Pakistan: Oxford
University Press.
Mansoor, S., Zafar, M., Hussain, N., Sikandar, A., Azam, S.I., & Tatari, S.K. (2005). English and
employment in Pakistan (Unpublished summary report). Karachi, Pakistan: Aga Khan University,
Centre of English Language.
Ministry of Education, Islamabad. (2006). English curriculum for classes I– XII. Retrieved June 10, 2007,
from the Pakistan Ministry of Education web site: http://www.moe.gov.pk
Nekatibeb, T. (2007). The impact of learning with the mother tongue on academic achievement: A case
study of grade 8 students in Ethiopia. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Language and development: Africa and
beyond (pp. 65 – 78). Ethiopia, Africa: The British Council.
Pennycook, A. (1995). English in the world/The world in English. In J.W. Tollefson (Ed.), Power and
inequality in language education (pp. 34 – 58). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Phillipson, R. (2001). English for globalisation or for the world’s people? International Review of
Education, 47(3– 4), 185– 200.
Rahman, T. (1996). Language and politics in Pakistan. Karachi, Pakistan: Oxford University Press.
Rahman, T. (2002). Language, ideology and power. Karachi, Pakistan: Oxford University Press.
Rahman, T. (2004). Denizens of alien worlds: A study of education, inequality and polarization in Pakistan.
Oxford, London: Oxford University Press.
Ramanathan, V. (2005). The English-vernacular divide: Postcolonial language politics and practice.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Shamim, F. (1993). Teacher-learner behaviour and classroom processes in large ESL classes in Pakistan.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education, University of Leeds, UK.
Shamim, F. (2006). Case studies of organization of English language teaching in public-sector universities
in Pakistan. Research report for the National Committee on English, Higher Education Commission,
Islamabad, Pakistan.
 Asia Pacific Journal of Education 249

Shamim, F. (2007). English as the language for development in Pakistan: Issues, challenges and possible
solutions. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Language and development: Africa and beyond (pp. 97 – 118). Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia: The British Council.
Shamim, F., & Allen, P. (2000). Activity types and pattern of interaction in language classrooms in
Pakistan (Unpublished research report). Karachi, Pakistan: Aga Khan University, Institute for
Educational Development.
Shamim, F., & Qureshi, R. (2007, June). English as gatekeeper: Evidence from a graduate program for
non-native speaker teachers in Pakistan. Paper presented at the CEL international seminar on English
and Empowerment in the Developing World, Karachi, Pakistan.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2006). Language policy and linguistic human rights. In T. Ricento (Ed.),
An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 273–291). London, UK: Blackwell
Publishing.
Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 11:32 31 May 2012

Spada, N., & Frohlich, M. (1995). COLT communicative orientation of language teaching observation
scheme: Coding conventions and application. Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University National
Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.
Swales, J.M. (1997). English as tyrannosaurus rex. World Englishes, 16, 373– 382.
Taylor, S.G. (2002). Multilingual societies and planned linguistic change: New language-in-education
programs in Estonia and South Africa. Comparative Education Review, 46, 313– 338.
Tollefson, J.W., & Tsui, A.B.M. (Eds.) (2004). Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda? Whose
agenda? London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tsui, A.B.M. (2004). Medium of instruction in Hong Kong: One country, two systems, whose language?
In J.W. Tollefson & A.M.B. Tsui (Eds.), Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda? Whose
agenda? (pp. 97 –116). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tsui, A.B.M. (2005). Language policy, culture and identity in the era of globalization. In B. Beaven (Ed.),
IATEFL 2005 conference selections (pp. 41– 51). UK: IATEFL.
UNESCO. (2003). Education in a multilingual world. Paris: Education sector position paper, Author.
UNICEF. (2000, June). Defining quality. Paper presented at the International Working Group on Education
meeting, Florence, Italy.
Vavrus, F. (2002). Postcoloniality and English: Exploring language policy and politics of development in
Tanzania. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 373–397.
Watson-Gegeo, K.A., & Gegeo, D.W. (1995). Understanding language and power in the Solomon Islands:
Methodological lessons for educational intervention. In J.W. Tollefson (Ed.), Power and inequality in
language education (pp. 59 – 72). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Webb, V. (2004). Language policy in post-apartheid South Africa. In J.W. Tollefson & A.M.B. Tsui (Eds.),
Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda? Whose agenda? (pp. 217– 240). London: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Wright, S. (2004). Language policy and language planning: From nationalism to globalisation. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.