The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 17:2 (2008), pp.

121-141

Preparing Students for Late Immersion in L2 –

An Experience from a Language Enrichment
Programme in PPost-colonial
ost-colonial Hong K ong
Kong
Benjamin Li
The Hong Kong Institute of Education
10, Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, The New Territories, Hong Kong
Benli@ied.edu.hk

The mandatory implementation of mother tongue education in Hong Kong in 1998 which converted
more than 70 per cent of its junior secondary classes from English medium to Chinese medium
has met with strong opposition from parents fearing a possible decline in the learner’s level of
English. To make up for the reduction in exposure to English and to prepare students for a
possible switch back to English medium learning at senior secondary level, a 3-year content-
based English enrichment programme funded by the government was piloted in selected schools
in 2001. An evaluation project assessing the effectiveness of the enrichment programme was
also carried out in the same year. The findings of the 3-year evaluation study show that although
such an English enrichment programme can possibly help students improve their English skills
and subject knowledge, preconditions and support services in terms of cross-disciplinary
collaboration are needed to attain effective content and language integrated learning.

Keywords: late immersion, bilingual education, medium of instruction, language enrichment,

Hongkong.

MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION POLICY also in lessons of other content subjects such as

IN POST-1997 HONG KONG
For nearly thirty years, in accordance with what
was considered the government’s advocacy of a
laissez-faire approach, the choice of the medium
for teaching and learning in Hong Kong secondary
schools rested with the schools. Yet the perception
of the general public, in particular that of parents,
of English as the language of power and prestige,
resulted in the establishment of a large number of
English medium (EMI) schools in the early 1980s.
In these schools, English was used as the medium
of instruction (MoI) not only in English lessons but
Science, Mathematics, History and Geography. The
demand for EMI schools had always been high and
the number of these schools was found to be nine
times that of Chinese1 as a medium of instruction
(CMI) schools in which English was used for
teaching and learning in English lessons but not in
content subject lessons. This imbalance of 9 to 1
schools meant that more than 90 per cent of school
children were taught and learned content subjects
in Chinese at primary level (grades 1-6), and then
switched to English medium upon entry to
secondary schooling (grades 7-13) (Evans, 2002;
Johnson, 1997).

© 2008 De La Salle University, Philippines

122 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER
One major problem with this late immersion
policy was that most students entering English
medium secondary schools were ill-equipped with
an adequate level of English proficiency for them
to learn content subjects effectively in English
(Education Commission, 1990, 1995). The
problem was further compounded by the fact that
some content teachers were not able to teach in
English proficiently. Many of the EMI schools that
admitted less able students used a mixture of
Chinese and English for instruction (Johnson, Shek,
& Law, 1991; Shek, Johnson, & Law, 1991).
Although this mixed mode instruction is defended
by some (Luke, 1991; So, 1992), the Education
Commission (1990, 1995) and Education
Department (1989, 1997) identify it as the main
cause for the students’ ‘declining’ standard in both
English and Chinese, a constant source of
discontent in education, government and business
sectors since the early 1980s. Calls to eliminate
mixed mode instruction were prevalent (Education
Commission, 1990, 1995; Education Department,
1989, 1997; Johnson, 1994, 1997). It was
believed that this would ensure the consistent use
of English and Chinese as teaching media. The
result was in the 1990s the formulation of the
controversial policy to make a clear distinction
between the English and Chinese streams.
Shortly before the return of Hong Kong’s
sovereignty to the People’s Republic of China in
1997, in its final months of power the colonial Hong
Kong government made what was considered an
abrupt decision and adopted a coercive
strengthening of policy (Owen, 1997; Wong,
1997). A so-called ‘Firm Guidance’ was issued to
all schools. This announced that from September
1998, Chinese would be the mandatory MoI for
content subject lessons for all secondary schools
with the exception of English lessons in which
English would still be used as the teaching and
learning medium (Education Department, 1997).
Schools wishing to use English as the medium of
instruction had to obtain approval from the
Education Department2. To gain the approval, the
schools had to satisfy the education governing
body that their content subject teachers were able
VOL. 17 NO. 2
to teach and the students could learn in English
(Education Department, 1997; Kwok, 1997). The
rationale for this change in the language medium
policy is that the mother tongue is the most
desirable medium for learning content subjects (Ho
& Ho, 1992; Johnson, 1994; SCOLAR, 1999).
Eventually, approval was granted for 114
secondary schools to use English as the MoI and
the remaining 307 schools were to use Chinese as
the MoI. This policy strongly discouraged all mixed
code instruction. The first cohort of secondary
students affected by this policy entered Secondary
1 (grade 7) in September 1998.
As a result of the mandatory implementation of
the language policy in secondary schools, the
percentage of EMI schools dropped from 90 per
cent in the 1980s to 25 per cent in 1998. Most
school children now begin English at Primary 1
(grade 1) and have 7 to 8 English lessons per week
and follow a traditional EFL teaching approach
throughout their primary and junior secondary
schooling (grade 1 to grade 9). During this period
they study the content subjects in the mother tongue.
After this, most continue their senior secondary
education (S4-7) through the medium of English.
About 25 per cent study content subjects through
the medium of Chinese during their primary schooling,
and based on the results of an attainment test taken
in primary six they are considered as capable of
studying in English (Education Department, 1998).
They then switch to English-medium in secondary
schools. These children learning through their mother
tongue at primary school level and then studying the
content subjects in a second or foreign language
at secondary school level is in line with the late
immersion model and considered effective for
enabling learners to achieve bilingualism (Johnson,
1997).
THE LATE IMMERSION MODEL
OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION
IN HONG KONG
In the late twentieth century, international
research on bilingual and second-language studies
LANGUAGE ENRICHMENT PROGRAMME IN POST-COLONIAL HONG KONG
was dominated by two movements: the transitional
bilingual programmes and the Canadian immersion
programmes (Marsh & Hau, 2000). This research
has been fuelled mainly by educational needs arising
from large immigrations. The discussion focuses on:
1. whether minority native languages should
be ‘submerged’ (i.e. replaced with the
dominant English language), or
2. whether students with limited English
proficiency should receive English-language
instruction and instruction in other subjects
in their own native language until they
achieve competence in English, i.e.
transitional bilingual programmes.
In conducting a sophisticated meta-analysis
comparing transitional bilingual education
programmes in the United States with submersion
programmes, Willig (1985) reports that students
in bilingual programmes who have been taught in
their first language performed better than students
taught in L2 on language and non-language
achievement tests in both English and L1. The
differences favouring transitional bilingual
programmes over submersion programmes are
supported by Krashen (1997), who argues that
good bilingual programmes provide students with
content knowledge and literacy in L1, which
indirectly aids L2 proficiency, because it is easier
to learn to read in the L1 which the child already
knows. He concludes that the best bilingual
programmes provide initial L1 instruction, L2
language classes, sheltered classes in which
students with intermediate L2 skills are taught non-
language subjects such as Mathematics and
Geography in L2, and a gradual transition to
mainstream non-language content classes taught in
L2. His conclusion was in line with Cummins’
(1996, p. 121) observation that “both large-scale
and small-scale studies consistently show that
strong promotion of bilingual students’ L1
throughout elementary school contributes
significantly to academic success.”
Perhaps the above arguments can be
summarised at least in the ‘threshold hypothesis.’
LI, B. 123
This posits that students must achieve minimum
thresholds of proficiency in both their first and
second languages before the benefits of bilingualism
can be achieved (Marsh & Hau, 2000). This
implies that students with only limited English
proficiency should initially receive any instruction
in their first language in combination with second
language support. As the students progress to the
following levels of education they learn subjects
requiring more complex language in the content
subject classes taught in English. At advanced levels
of education and in most abstract content areas,
classroom instruction should mainly be done in L2
but might occasionally be supplemented with L1.
The Hong Kong Education Department’s
rationale for the 1997 language policy is closely
akin to this view. The designation of most
secondary schools into the CMI stream and a small
number of schools into the EMI stream, and the
strict observance of the language of instruction, rely
on the observation that children learn best in their
mother tongue. Learning through English, a second
or foreign language as far as Chinese students are
concerned, can only be effective when the students
have reached a certain ‘threshold’ of language
competence in both their mother tongue and in English.
According to the working group of the Education
Commission this amounts to only approximately the
top 30 per cent of students. This policy can hopefully
provide an optimal learning environment for
students of different language proficiencies and
capabilities, in that English “should only be used
as a medium of instruction where students could
benefit from this” (1990, p. 96).
While mandating the use of Chinese in junior
secondary classes (S1-3) based on the threshold
hypothesis, the post-colonial government so far
has no clear policy with reference to the MoI in
senior secondary classes (S4-7). Since a successful
English-medium education continues to be
regarded as a pre-requisite for socio-economic
advancement in post-colonial Hong Kong, many
parents would still opt given the opportunity to send
their children to EMI schools. As a consequence,
many of the most prestigious and highly selective
English-language schools still strive to maintain their
124 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER
competitive edge by remaining English-medium. At
the same time schools which had to switch to adopt
CMI at junior secondary level under the
Government’s “Firm Guidance” in 1998 are still
eager to switch back to EMI at senior secondary
level so as to provide better conditions for students
to acquire high levels of proficiency in English. It is
still an open question whether and to what extent
the provision of additional support can be given
for students from schools following the ‘two-mode
teaching,’ in which Chinese is adopted as MoI in
junior secondary classes and English as the MoI
in senior secondary classes. The aim of such a
programme would be to enhance learning and to
make smooth the transition of students’ learning of
content subjects from Chinese to English medium
at Secondary 4. To investigate in greater detail the
feasibility of such a programme, an English language
Enrichment Programme (EP) was piloted in
fourteen CMI schools in 2001 and an evaluation
project assessing the effectiveness of EP was also
started in the same year.
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ENRICHMENT
PROGRAMME AND CONTENT AND
LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING
The EP consists of a series of modules written
and taught in English with themes or topics selected
from some key learning areas, such as history,
geography, science and mathematics or on cross-
curricular basis. The modules were designed for
students whose English proficiency was at low to
intermediate level, and were offered for Secondary
2 (S2) and Secondary 3 (S3) students in classes
randomly selected by the fourteen CMI schools.
The arrangement was made that in these
participating schools around two of the four classes
in S2 2 and S3 respectively were offered the
programme. This means about half of the S2 and
S3 students were EP students and the other half
non-EP ones. Each EP module is intended for use
in three to four teaching periods out of around 35
to 40 lessons (including 7 to 8 EFL lessons) which
students have to attend in a week. Participating
VOL. 17 NO. 2
schools might choose to teach some or all of these
modules to suit the needs of their EP students.
Participating schools are required to design their
own school-based implementation plan which must
include scheduling, designing the learning and
teaching activities, and organising all support
strategies. Seminars on how to use the module
materials were conducted by the programme
developer, but no training was provided for
language teachers on content-based instruction and
for content subject teachers on second/foreign
language teaching methodology, nor were there any
guidelines for the selection of programme
instructors.
The EP can be incorporated to a certain extent
into the Content and Language Integrated Learning
(CLIL) classrooms where non-language subjects
are taught in English (Cresse, 2005; Marsh &
Marsland, 1999). In CLIL classrooms, bilingual
children learning a second or foreign language are
supposed to be taught subject knowledge while
being exposed to English language acquisition
possibilities. Education success comes as a result
of students learning the subject curriculum and
related language skills and literacies at the same
time. Of the various CLIL models developed by
Snow, Met, and Genesee (1989), the EP in the
present study is akin to the theme-based CLIL
programme, where the language syllabus is
organized around curricular topics which form the
context and through which both language- and
content-related activities are conducted. The
general belief is that theme-based CLIL improves
the motivation to learn as well as improving learning
itself because the integration of language and
content through a careful selection of curricular
topics is meant to provide students with a
contextual, meaningful, purposeful and enjoyable
learning experience. By integrating content and
language, L2 objectives can be arranged in
accordance with subject area objectives, and a
theme-based syllabus which matches both language
form and function with these same education
objectives may be designed to cater to the needs
of L2 learners. In this way, learners can use the L2
to express thematic knowledge they have acquired
LANGUAGE ENRICHMENT PROGRAMME IN POST-COLONIAL HONG KONG
in the L1 from identical areas of the school
curriculum (Alptekin, Ercetin, & Bayyurt, 2007).
Yet there is still a lack of data regarding the link
between learners’ content knowledge and their
functional linguistic abilities. In her seminal study,
Swain (1985) posited that in the immersion context
– a type of CLIL – students make native-like
progress in content knowledge and in interpretive
skills, but not in expressive skills, i.e. their oral and
written linguistic development. She suggests that
the reason for this discrepancy is not solely due to
a lack of input in the classroom, as immersion
students are already in an environment that provides
substantial amounts of input in the target language.
What is missing, in Swain’s (1995) view, is
modified output. As she explains, increasing
students’ focus on their output, both oral and
written, encourages the movement from semantic
to syntactic processing, which leads to positive
results in the development of expressive skills.
As mentioned in the Introduction, a 3-year
content-based English enrichment programme
funded by the government of Hong Kong was
piloted in selected schools in 2001 to make up for
the reduction in exposure to English and to prepare
students for a possible switch back to English
medium learning at senior secondary level. An
evaluation project assessing the effectiveness of the
enrichment programme was also carried out in the
same year. The design and findings of this
evaluation project are presented below.
THE EVALUATION PROJECT
A three-year longitudinal study (2001-2004)
was carried out in selected CMI schools to assess
the effectiveness of the EP, which was designed to
help students increase exposure to English and
develop their skills while they continue to learn in
the mother tongue with the aim of ensuring effective
subject content learning and high order cognitive
development. The project embraced 14 secondary
schools in which half of the S2 and S3 classes from
each school were randomly selected for the EP.
The 14 schools represented the 307 CMI schools
LI, B. 125
in Hong Kong. They were located in different
districts and belonged to different categories:
government, aided, direct-subsidy, private schools,
and girls’, boys’ and co-educational schools. In
view of the fact that most students in these schools
were of intermediate or low ability on admission
to Secondary 1 in terms of English proficiency,
both EP and non-EP students were meant to be at
more or less the same level when the programme
began.
As many of the participating schools adopting
CMI in their junior secondary classes had opted
for EMI for some subjects in S4 classes, the project
also aimed to explore whether the EP can help
students make a smooth transition from Chinese
medium to English medium in S4 when some
schools switch to EMI. These S4 classes
comprised both EP and non-EP students. This
meant some students within the same class had
participated in the EP in S2/S3 while others had
not.
The evaluation project aimed at addressing the
following research questions:
1) To what extent were the EP lessons well
implemented?
2) How well do students of CMI schools
adapt to English-medium learning in S4 if
the EP is introduced at junior secondary
level?
3) What are the pre-conditions and support
services needed to make the EP work in
CMI schools?
Various research tools were used to address
the questions, namely questionnaire surveys,
proficiency tests, in-depth interviews and
classroom observations. This paper firstly reports
on what happened in the intervention, i.e. how EP
teachers prepared students in S2 and S3 for
switching to EMI in S4, which responds to
research question 1. It then presents the data which
show how well students of CMI schools adapted3
to English-medium learning in S4 when the EP had
been introduced at S2 and S3, which answers
research question 2. Adaptation is defined here as
126 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER
‘the act of changing something or changing your
behaviour to make it suitable for a new situation’
(Collins UK Staff, 1996).
The data collected comprise the following:
• Qualitative data from field notes of lesson
observations of 21 EP lessons in ten
participating schools in the first two years
of implementation of EP illustrating
teachers’ practices and students’ learning
processes in the EP classrooms;
• Quantitative data from proficiency tests
showing what ex-EP students could do
with English in S4;
• Qualitative data from field notes of lesson
observations of 13 S4 lessons in eight
participating schools in the third (final) year
of the study showing students’ adaptation
to English-medium learning in various
subjects in S4.
The findings and information collected from the
interviews were synthesised and critically analysed
to inform the discussion regarding the pre-conditions
necessary to make the EP work in CMI schools, thus
answering research question 3. In the following
section, the design of the evaluation methods and
data collection instruments used to examine EP
students’ adaptation to S4 will be described.
EVALUATION INSTRUMENTS
Proficiency tests
The proficiency test for S4 students was
designed to see what students could do in English
in the core academic subject areas -Mathematics,
Science and Social Science. The data collected
were analysed in such a way that the performances
of students who had participated in the EP in S2/
S3 were compared to those who had not benefited
from the EP.
Developing the proficiency tests
The overall aim of the EP was to enable subject
learning through English in S4 and develop thinking
VOL. 17 NO. 2
skills expected of S4 students in the three core
subject areas – Mathematics, Science and Social
Science. To achieve this aim, it was necessary to
clearly identify them in the way it is done in
Learning for life – learning through life
(Education Commission, 2000). General thinking
skills/learning opportunities which could be tested
relatively reliably were: 1) communication; 2)
creativity; 3) critical thinking; 4) numeracy and 5)
problem-solving. By combining these thinking skills
with the four basic language skills of aural
comprehension, speaking, reading comprehension
and writing, it was decided that S4 students
studying through English would need to do the
following: 1) understand and act on instructions/
explanations for subject-specific classroom tasks;
2) develop and display knowledge of subject-
specific concepts through speech; 3) read with
understanding subject-specific texts and use the
texts to learn or solve problems; and 4) develop
and display knowledge of subject-specific
concepts through writing. Two sets of papers were
developed for S4 students in CMI schools, one
for the Science stream and the other for the Arts
stream students. The tests assessed concepts and
procedures in Mathematics, Science, History and
Geography which all CMI S4 students should
already have mastered in Chinese medium classes.
Speaking skills were included in more than one
subject. A sample written test paper with
Geography subject content is attached as Appendix
A, and a sample speaking test paper with
Mathematics subject content is attached as
Appendix B.
The test designed for S4 students was piloted
in 2 EMI schools and 2 CMI schools not involved
in the EP and then revised. A clear criterion-
referenced scoring system based on students’
responses in the piloted test was developed and
reviewed by a testing expert from an overseas
university. Both the test items and criteria were
further reviewed by subject specialists, which led
to further revisions. A sample of the scoring
descriptors for Section III of the S4 Test with
Mathematics subject content is attached as
Appendix C. Procedures for developing scoring
LANGUAGE ENRICHMENT PROGRAMME IN POST-COLONIAL HONG KONG
descriptors were informed by Clark,Scarino, and
Brownell (1994) and Marton and Booth (1997).
Four categories of proficiency were devised with
scores from 0-6. Broadly, scores of 5-6 indicated
a complete, extended response showing evidence
of high level thinking, e.g. interrelating variables,
hypothesizing, originality; scores of 3-4 indicated
a generally competent response – i.e. generally
good in terms of language and conceptual content;
scores of 1-2 indicated a partially appropriate
response – sometimes appropriate in terms of
language and/or conceptual content; and a score
of 0 indicated a flawed, minimal or nil response.
Rater training was carried out by the test
developers for the markers before marking
commenced. The process of rater training was 1)
team engagement with aims and design of the tests
and criteria; 2) sample rating; 3) score comparison
and 4) score calibration and refining of descriptors.
In order to resolve the issue of inter-rater reliability,
one rater marked the Science papers, another the
Geography papers, and a third the History papers.
Method of data analysis
The aim of the test data analysis was to assess
any change in students’ language proficiency in
terms of subject-related English and English
language skills. In S4, comparison was made
between the test results of the students who had
participated in the EP at S2/3 and those who had
not. In doing so, the mean in each subject was
tested for significance (p<0.05) by means of
independent samples t-tests.
Lesson observation and interviews
The lesson observation of S2 and S3 classes in
the first two years of implementation of the EP
aimed to discover the extent to which the EP had
been properly implemented. Observation
conducted focused on 1) the teaching and learning
approaches; 2) the approaches for the development
of language and content knowledge; and 3) the
language use of the teacher and the students.
The S4 lesson observation and post-lesson
discussion components in the third year of the
LI, B. 127
evaluation project aimed to gather data for an
overview of the effectiveness of the EP in facilitating
the S4 students in subject content learning and high
order cognitive development.
Lesson observation schedules for S2/S3 classes
(See Appendix D) and S4 classes (See Appendix
E) respectively were formulated to facilitate the
collection of relevant data relating to the objectives
outlined above. In the S2/S3 EP classes, the
observers focused on obtaining a general picture
of the strategies the teachers adopted to enable
students to use English to express understanding
of content. In each of the S4 classes observed, six
students were identified based on the information
provided by the content teacher and among them
3 were EP students (1 showing good performance,
1 average and 1 poor) and 3 non-EP students
(good, average and poor). During the lesson, the
observers used the checklist and took note of the
performance of the target students so as to make
a comparison between the two groups. A post-
lesson discussion with the teacher was conducted
to elicit his/her view on the effectiveness of the EP
in helping students transit to English learning in S4.
RESULTS
Lesson observation of S2/S3 classes
Within the first two years of implementation of
the EP (2001/02 and 2002/03), 21 EP lessons in
ten participating schools were observed. The teaching
approaches adopted in the observed lessons were
noted and analysed to examine how the teachers,
through delivering the modules, prepared students
of S2/S3 to switch to EMI in S4. The lesson
observation data show that in general:
• most lessons observed tended to be
teacher-directed – teacher-whole class
interaction seemed the common pattern,
which amounted to over 70 per cent in nine
of the eleven observed lessons in the first
year of EP and around 50 per cent in seven
of the ten lessons observed in the second
year of EP.
128 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER VOL. 17 NO. 2

• Most teachers followed everything set out
in the unit and taught accordingly, following
a similar pattern of teaching:
* teachers ask a few questions to prepare
students for the activities and to check
understanding;
* students did some reading/listening tasks;
and
* teachers checked answers with the
students (in which some explanations of
vocabulary or subject content or
questioning could be found).
The teachers tended to ask factual questions.
Questions requiring extended answers and high-
order thinking were uncommon in the lessons
observed. There was also a lack of obvious focus
on language and skills development in these lessons
apart from explanations of the meaning of words.
Most of the lessons observed focused mainly
on reading and listening comprehension,
although a few involved pair/group discussions
in Cantonese or oral presentations by the
students. Writing tasks were usually assigned
as homework. It was doubtful whether students
ever had sufficient opportunity to speak in English
in the EP lessons.
Language support or feedback to students’
language use was generally rarely recorded in the
lessons observed. Even when teachers graded
students’ oral performance, no feedback was
provided on any individual student proficiency
gaps. To sum up, lesson observation data show
that while students were generally provided with
English-medium input which was generally within
the linguistic range of the students, there seemed
to be a lack of linguistic feedback and
opportunities for the students to develop subject-
related language skills.

Table 1
Comparison of the EP and non-EP cohorts – S4 Proficiency Test Performance (English Skills)

EP Students Non-EP Students Difference

SKILL (EP) (n=824) (Non-EP)(n=632) (EP – Non-EP)
Mean Score S.D. Mean Score S.D. Mean Score

Listening / Writing – Science 3.27 1.017 2.69 1.408 0.58*

Maths Q1(a): Understanding instructions involving numbers
Maths Q1(b): Understanding instructions about and calculating probability
Science Q1: Taking dictation of vocabulary regarding extraction and disposal of metals

Solving Written Problems in Writing 1.08 0.670 0.79 0.710 0.29*

Maths Q2: Comparing mean, median and mode
Science Q2(a): Defining an alloy
Science Q2(b): Applying knowledge of properties of alloys to a practical problem

Listening / Writing - Arts 1.68 0.803 1.47 0.984 0.21

Geography Q1: Taking dictation of vocabulary regarding Japan’s resourcesHistory
Q1: Taking dictation of vocabulary regarding results of World War I

Interpreting Data and Writing 1.14 0.613 0.95 0.525 0.19

Geography Q2(a) Part One: Comparisons among Developing Countries, Hong Kong and High Income Countries
Geography Q2(a) Part Two: Estimating Hong Kong’s quality of life
Geography Q2(b): Applying understanding of what a “developing country” is (either one of)
History Q2: Comparing social conditions in the 1930s in the Western World with Hong Kong
History Q3: Evaluating the aims of Lenin for Russian society

*Significant at 0.05 level

LANGUAGE ENRICHMENT PROGRAMME IN POST-COLONIAL HONG KONG LI, B. 129

S4 Proficiency tests comparison, definitions and applications of

Proficiency tests were administered to S4
students at the beginning of the S4 year.
Comparisons were then made between the
performances on proficiency tests of S4 students
who had participated in the EP in S2/3 and those
who had not. This was done in order to ascertain
whether the EP students’ performances were
significantly better than those of the non-EP
students. The salient findings of the evaluation
project are described below.
Students’ English language proficiency change
Table 1 shows a detailed comparison of the EP
and the non-EP students’ performance in employing
various English skills for learning content
subjects. Significant differences between the EP
students and the non-EP students were found in
Science-related English skills. The EP students
achieved significantly higher mean scores
compared to their non-EP counterparts. This
indicates that the EP students performed
significantly better than the non-EP students in
simple comprehension of Mathematics and
Science-related information and in simple written
Mathematics and Science-related concepts, when
all these items were grouped together for the
purposes of assessing integrated English skills
(reading/writing, listening/writing or speaking/
listening). The best mean score was 3.27 in the EP
students’ listening/writing skill. This indicates that the
EP students performed at the ‘generally competent’4
level in aurally comprehending and writing down
Science-related items of vocabulary (dictation/note
taking-type skills), whereas the non-EP students
performed generally at only the ‘partially
appropriate’ level with a mean score of 2.69.
Overall, the EP students did significantly better
in listening/writing English skills and solving written
problems in writing in Science. However, they did
not do significantly better than the non-EP students
in the more language-rich History and Geography
items.
Apart from the written portion of the S4
proficiency test, each participating school was
asked to choose from each class five students who
had taken the EP in S2/3, and five who had not
done so, to take a speaking test. As shown in
Table 2, there is no significant difference orally

Table 2
Comparison of EP and non-EP cohorts – S4 Speaking Test Performance at T5

EP Students Non-EP Students Difference

SUBJECT (EP) (n=85) (NEP) (n=85) (EP – NEP)
Mean Score # S.D. Mean Score # S.D. Mean Score
Maths
Comparing and Evaluating
Bar Charts 1.92 52 1.607 1.00 11 1.183 0.92
Science
Describing a Rainbow
Formation Process 2.41 54 1.339 2.13 8 1.808 0.28
Geography 1.68 33 1.037 1.00 10 1.130 0.68
Geography - Part 1
Assessing Deforestation Rates 2.03 33 1.403 1.60 10 1.506 0.43
Geography - Part 2
Drawing Conclusions about
Peoples’ Lifestyles 1.33 33 1.451 0.40 10 0.843 0.93*
History
Comparing Statistics from 2
World Wars and Suggesting
Implications 2.33 12 0.888 1.33 6 1.366 1.00*

*Significant at 0.05 level by Mann-Whitney U test

130 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER
between the EP and the non-EP students when
comparing and evaluating Mathematics bar charts,
describing a rainbow formation process, and
assessing deforestation rates. However, a
significant difference occurs in the History item
where students compared statistics from two
World Wars and suggested implications. The EP
students scored one mark higher than the non-EP
students, 2.33 as compared to 1.33, equivalent to
one level of proficiency above them. Yet the fairly
low score of 2.33 indicates that the EP students in
S4 managed to make some partially appropriate
to appropriate verbal descriptions, but tended to
do less well in high-order thinking tasks or task
components such as those which involved
extrapolating from data or interrelating data and
drawing implications.
In relating proficiency test results to EP impact,
it is interesting to note that though the EP students
performed better in four oral tasks (see Table 2),
their written and speaking performances reflected
significantly greater strength only in dealing with
the less language-rich (see Table 1) lower-order
items (see Table 2) respectively. Since the EP
lessons did not, as observed in the first and second
years of the project, provide rich opportunity for
speech, it seems that factors other than the EP had
been at work here. For example, the EP students
who volunteered or were selected to do the EP
were more confident about speaking in any case.
On the other hand, as Science topics were not
common in the EP modules, the impact of the EP
on the EP students’ better performance in less
language-rich lower-order Science items seemed
to be minimal.
LESSON OBSERVATION OF S4 CLASSES
AND INTERVIEWS
Lesson observation
Between February and March 2004, 13 S4
lessons were observed in eight participating
schools. The lessons included: four Geography,
three Biology, one Mathematics, two Chemistry,
VOL. 17 NO. 2
two History, and one Physics. These lessons were
taught by content subject teachers except the two
History lessons of which the teachers were also
the English language teachers of the respective
classes. The lesson observation data show that in
general:
• English was generally used in the teachers’
delivery of the subject content;
• the teachers’ questions usually required no
high order thinking skills;
• most students could answer the teachers’
questions in English, though few were able
to produce extended English beyond the
phrase level;
• students seldom asked the teachers
questions or volunteered to answer
questions; in some lessons the students
were allowed to ask questions in
Cantonese;
• group discussion was seldom conducted
and in some lessons discussion was done
in Cantonese but there was no evidence of
small group-based input to help students
move from Cantonese to English.
During each of the 13 lessons observed, the
observer used the checklist (see Appendix D ) and
took note of the performance of the six target
students [three were EP students (one showing
good performance, one average and one poor )
and three non-EP students (good, average and
poor)] so as to make a comparison between the
two groups. All together the performance of 39
EP and the same number of non-EP students was
noted in the 13 lessons observed. The lesson
observation data are summarised below:
• some EP students, in particular those
considered by their teachers as having high
ability, were more able than non-EP students
to produce grammatically correct English
at sentence or discourse level;
• some EP students seemed to be more
confident in using English in Class, as
evident in their initiating to answer
LANGUAGE ENRICHMENT PROGRAMME IN POST-COLONIAL HONG KONG
teachers’ questions, soliciting views from
their peers and assisting the less capable
students;
• some EP students were more competent
in exercising their high order thinking skills
as evidenced in their more accurate and
elaborated answers and their attempts to
organise their ideas in a more extended
manner.
Both EP and non-EP students in the lessons
observed were on the whole attentive and well-
disciplined, though most were passive. Few
volunteered to answer the teachers’ questions in
class. It was common for their teachers to repeat
or rephrase their questions in order to elicit
responses from these students. The questions that
the teachers asked were mostly straightforward and
factual rather than those requiring high order
thinking skills. When questions asked or concepts
taught were found to be beyond the students’
language ability, some teachers resorted to
Cantonese. Most students only responded if called
upon by the teachers. The answers they provided
rarely extended beyond the sentence level. This
lack of opportunity for extended responses made
it difficult to assess whether students were able to
express high order thinking skills in English. The
lessons observed were mostly teacher-directed and
while there were some pair work activities, group
discussions were rarely organised. Under the
circumstances, it was difficult to judge by
observation alone the effectiveness of the EP in
enhancing English medium learning at the S4 level.
On the whole, EP students, especially those
whose ability was considered by their teachers as
high, were found to be more able to produce
grammatically correct English at sentence or
discourse level. They were more confident in using
English in interacting with the teachers and fellow
students and in language activities, and were more
competent in exercising their high order thinking
skills. However, as many of the target students did
not have a chance to speak in the lessons observed,
there was no strong evidence to show that EP
students outperformed the non-EP ones.
LI, B. 131
Post-lesson interviews with teachers
The interviews were conducted soon after the
lesson observations. The results added a different
perspective to the understanding of the impact of
the EP on student learning.
All lessons observed were of subjects for which
the MOI was claimed to be English, and textbooks
were in English. However, most content subject
teachers revealed in post-lesson discussion that
they did not use 100% English in their regular
lessons as they remarked that their students had
difficulty in understanding difficult concepts
presented in English. Some teachers used Cantonese
to explain difficult concepts and terminologies while
other teachers allowed students to ask questions in
Cantonese. As they had to cover the content-loaded
syllabus, they found using Cantonese to deliver the
subject content much less time consuming. One
Mathematics teacher commented on the limited need
for students to use language to work out mathematical
problems in assignments or during lessons as they
could always answer teachers’ questions using very
simple English as long as the point was understood.
Thus, it was hard to see how such low level
language requirements could help S4 students
effectively complete tasks or activities requiring
logical thinking using Mathematics-obligatory
teams and extended speech.
Some content subject teachers who had been
following the same cohort of EP students for three
years remarked their lack of specific teaching
strategies for enabling students to comprehend
subject-specific vocabulary and for enhancement
of oral expressions, to say nothing of developing
high order thinking skills. The professional training
they had received had not prepared them for
enhancing students’ English proficiency and so they
were unaware of the role that language played in
EP modules and content subject lessons. While
they queried whether they were the right people
to teach the EP and what they could achieve in
enhancing students’ English proficiency in content
subjects, the two History teachers who were
majored in English also expressed self-doubts
about their content subject knowledge and their
‘qualifications’ for teaching the EP.
132 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER
CONCLUSIONS
As discussed in the sections above, significant
differences were found in some aspects when the
performance between the EP and non-EP students
was compared in the S4 proficiency test. The EP
students showed significantly better Mathematics-
and Science-related English skills compared to
their non-EP counterparts. However, further
analysis revealed that though the ex-EP students
in S4 were able to make some partially
appropriate to appropriate verbal descriptions,
they tended to do less well on high-order
thinking tasks or task components such as those
which involved extrapolating from data or
interrelating data and drawing implications. It is also
interesting to note that though the EP students
performed better in some oral tasks, their speaking
and written performances reflected significantly
greater strength only in less language-rich lower-
order items. To some extent this shows that the
effect of the EP on students, especially on
development in tackling high order thinking tasks,
was limited.
In line with the results of the S4 proficiency
test which show that there are significant
differences in some aspects of the performance of
the EP and non-EP students, in the lessons
observed, some differences between the two
groups were also noticed. Compared with those
found in the non-EP group, more incidents
occurred when the EP students demonstrated the
four kinds of language abilities, their confidence in
using English, and their ability to use high order
thinking skills. However, there was no evidence to
show that the EP students outperformed the non-
EP students regarding the ability to use subject-
specific English at sentence or discourse level.
Data collected from lesson observations further
show that English medium instruction was limited.
While English was employed in the lessons
observed, the majority of these lessons were
teacher-directed and therefore little student-
student/student-class interaction was recorded.
English language support was insufficient for
students to carry out pair/group discussions and
VOL. 17 NO. 2
hence it was common practice for students to use
Cantonese. The same was observed in the S2/S3
classrooms in the first and second years of the
evaluation project; the provision of opportunities
for students to practise their expressive skills, that
is, in their oral and written linguistic development,
was less than in the case of the interpretative skills
- in understanding of content knowledge through
listening and reading. These results were similar to
those reported in Swain (1985), in which the low
level of L2 output of immersion students did not
match the high level of comprehensible input found
in the immersion classroom interaction which had
enabled the students to learn subject content and
improve their L2 proficiency.
The interview data show that many content
subject teachers did not believe themselves to have
a significant role to play nor to have any
responsibility in developing their students’ language
ability, as their academic background and
professional training had not prepared them to do
so.
IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Pre-conditions that make the EP work in
CMI schools
The results reveal that the EP may have some
positive effects on students of CMI schools who
are adapting themselves to English-medium learning
in S4; nevertheless, some serious dilemmas remain.
Research in the literature and reflection on the
findings reveal that some factors are critical to
future EP planning. The recommendations have
been identified as follows:
• The findings show that though English was
used in teachers’ instruction in most of the
S4 lessons observed, Cantonese seemed
to be the dominant language in students’
pair work and group work activities. The
English-impoverished learning situation
shows that many content subject teachers
were unaware of the role that language
plays in subject learning. A need exists for
LANGUAGE ENRICHMENT PROGRAMME IN POST-COLONIAL HONG KONG
content subject teachers to be provided
with support and training on strategies for
using English as the medium of instruction
in order to enrich not only the students’
interpretative skills but also their expressive
skills in English.
• The findings also show that the English
level of the high- and medium-ability
students, EP and non-EP alike, is generally
inadequate for high level engagement with
subject-matter in English in S4; even
though a large percentage of the curriculum
has already been allotted to English lessons.
Thus, language and content subject
teachers need to be enabled to understand
their respective roles and responsibilities
in facilitating the students’ English
language development. English-medium
teachers need to understand their
responsibility to teach the students with
limited English the English needed to
explore the relevant subject content in
terms of both speech and writing. These
teachers also need to be competent in their
use of teaching strategies to make the
subject-matter more accessible to their
students. English teachers in English
medium schools, on the other hand, need
to know that the role they play is very
different from their counterparts in
Chinese-medium schools. They need to
develop in their students subject-
compatible English competence and high-
order academic thinking skills through
English. They also need to teach English in
intellectually challenging contexts, with
more motivating and valuable content than
the current trivial and intellectually
impoverished content of most English
syllabuses/textbooks.
• Though in many aspects the performance
of EP students is better than their non-EP
counterparts, there was no evidence to
show that EP students outperformed the
non-EP students regarding the ability to use
subject-specific English at sentence or
LI, B. 133
discourse level. In line with the studies by
Swain and others (Musumeci, 1996; Pica,
2002; Swain, 1985, 1995, 1998), the
findings in this study call for increased
opportunities for extensive L2 output by
students. Module materials need to be
modified to develop not only knowledge
of the content material but also their English
skills. They also need to be revised with a
focus on content-obligatory language use
and on the development of students’
language abilities and cognitive skills
required for effective learning in specific
academic contexts. In learning these
modules in the content subject classroom,
students need to have opportunities to use
either spoken or written English to draw
conclusions, synthesise, hypothesise,
compare, calculate and express cause and
effect on a variety of topics. Activities such
as these enable students to develop their
high order thinking skills and can facilitate
more high-order student output and should
therefore be incorporated in future EP
modules.
Establishing an academic culture of cross-
disciplinary collaboration
To deal with these dilemmas, an academic
culture of cross-disciplinary collaboration between
language teachers and content subject teachers
needs to be established. Such a culture could be
developed through the provision of staff
development programmes with firm administrative
support. The stereotypical practice that language
work in the content classroom should be given little
status when set alongside other knowledge
hierarchies needs to be challenged and a policy
shift is required so that classrooms no longer
privilege either subject content over language or
language over subject content (Cresse, 2005;
Marsh & Marsland, 1999). Educators need to
realise that all teachers, both language teachers and
content subject teachers alike, share equal
responsibilities for both the academic growth and
language development of their students.
134 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER
This can be achieved through the Content and
Learning Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach, which
requires a reciprocal relationship between language
and content subject teachers. Language teachers
may consult with content subject teachers before
incorporating into language instruction meaningful and
important content that exhibit language-related value
in the rest of the content subject curricula. Since they
are ill-prepared to “teach” language or even to
recognize students’ language-learning needs because
of lack of training in English-teaching pedagogy,
content subject teachers can consult the language
teachers regarding what can be done in the content
areas to develop not only the learners’ interpretative
skills but also their expressive skills which are required
in particular content areas (Snow et al., 1989). The
CLIL team once formed should demonstrate
substantial and extensive understanding and sharing
among its members on all cross-disciplinary design
and instructional matters.
To conclude, the academic culture which is
conducive to successful CLIL and which
facilitates students’ learning of content subjects
through English should include the following
features:
• Cross-disciplinary collaboration within
schools should be strongly promoted and
fully supported by school management and
administrators;
• Language and content should be treated
as dependent processes and equal in
importance, and should become the shared
responsibility of both language and content
subject teachers so that both the language
and academic development of students
may be fostered and enhanced;
• Differentiation of roles among educators
should be ensured in the students’ late
English immersion process – with
English language teachers focusing on
everyday and subject-compatible
English knowledge and communication
skills and content subject teachers
focusing on subject-obligatory concepts
and skills in English;
VOL. 17 NO. 2
• Joint design and planning of curricula and
instruction by language and content subject
specialists taking into consideration
students’ language and academic levels;
objectives and requirements need to be
organised and maintained;
• Intensive, ongoing training courses and
professional dialogues need to be provided
and promoted.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank the other members
of the Enrichment Programme Evaluation Project
team for their contribution to the data collection,
data analysis and compilation of the project
reports. They are Elizabeth Walker, Jennie Wong,
Rita Berry, Alice Chow, Anne Ma, May Pang, Tse-
tso Yuk Wah and Winnie Wong. He is also grateful
to Andy Kirkpatrick and Jackie Lee for their
valuable comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
NOTES
1
For the purposes of this paper, when the term ‘Chinese’
or ‘Chinese language’ is used, it is meant to be
‘Cantonese,’ a dialect of Chinese spoken by the
majority of the population in Hong Kong.
2
The Education Department of Hong Kong was renamed
the Education and Manpower Bureau of Hong Kong
on 1st January 2003, and the name was further changed
to the Education Bureau on 1st July 2007.
3
The word ‘adapt,’ ‘adapted’ or ‘adaptation’ indicates
that as in the research question the writer assumed a
change from Cantonese as the MOI to English as MOI.
Readers should bear in mind that data here and
elsewhere show that this change is usually
implemented in schools as a change in written input
and output only. That is, textbooks, class written work
and written exams are in English, but classroom talk
may not necessarily be in English.
4
4 categories of proficiency:
0 = Flawed, minimal or nil response
1 - 2 = Partially, appropriate response or nil response
3 - 4 = Generally competent response
5 - 6 = Complete, extended response showing
evidence of high level thinking
LANGUAGE ENRICHMENT PROGRAMME IN POST-COLONIAL HONG KONG
REFERENCES
Alptekin, C., Ercetin, G. & Bayyurt, Y. (2007).
The effectiveness of a theme-based syllabus for
young L2 learners. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 28(1), 1-17.
Clark, J.L., Scarino, A., & Brownell, J. A. (1994).
Improving the quality of learning: A
framework for target-oriented curriculum
renewal in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong
Kong Bank Language Development Fund.
Collins UK Staff. (1996). Collins Cobuild
English language dictionary. London:
Collins.
Cresse, A. (2005). Is this content-based language
teaching? Linguistics and Education, 16(2),
188-204.
Cummins, J. (1996). Bilingual education: What
does the research say? In J. Cummins (Ed.),
Negotiating identities: Education for
empowerment in a diverse society (pp. 97-
133). Ontario, CA: California Association for
Bilingual Education.
Education Commission. (1990). Curriculum and
behavioural problems in schools (Education
Commission Report No. 4). Hong Kong:
Government Printer.
Education Commission. (1995). Enhancing
language proficiency: A comprehensive
strategy. (Education Commission Report
No.6). Hong Kong: Government Printer.
Education Commission. (2000). Learning for life,
learning through life: Reform proposals for
the education system in Hong Kong. Hong
Kong: Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region of the People’s Republic of China.
Education Department. (1989). Report of the
working group set up to reviewlanguage
improvement measures. Hong Kong:
Government Printer.
Education Department. (1997). Medium of
instruction: Guidance for secondary schools.
Hong Kong: Printing Department.
Education Department. (1998). Evaluation study
on the implementation of medium of
instruction grouping in secondary schools
LI, B. 135
(1994/95-1996/97). Hong Kong: Education
Department.
Evans, S. (2002). The medium of instruction in
Hong Kong: Policy and practice in the new
English and Chinese streams. Research Papers
in Education, 17(1), 97-120.
Ho, B. & Ho, K.K. (1992). The development
trend of the medium of instruction in secondary
schools of Hong Kong: Prospect and
retrospect. Language and Education, 18(5),
400-412.
Johnson, R.K., Shek, C.K.W., & Law, E.H.F.
(1991). Implementing Hong Kong’s proposed
language policy for secondary schools: Research
and its implications. In Crawford, N.B. & Hui,
E.K.P. (Eds.), Curriculum and behavioural
problems in schools: A response to Education
Commission Report No. 4. (Education Paper
11) (pp.95-109). Hong Kong: Faculty of
Education, Hong Kong University Press.
Johnson, R.K. (1994). Appendix 1b. Critical
review of literature on language in education
in Hong Kong. Education Commission
Report 6. Hong Kong: Government Printer.
Johnson, R.K. (1997). The Hong Kong education
system. In Johnson, R.K. & Swain, M. (Eds.),
Immersion education: International
perspectives (pp.171-189). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. (1997). Why Bilingual Education?
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED403101).
Kwok, S. (1997, March 22). New rule will have
schools using English. South China Morning
Post, p.7.
Luke, K.K. (1991). Mixed-code teaching. In
Crawford, N.B. & Hui, E.K.P. (Eds.), The
curriculum and behaviour problems in
schools: A response to ECR 4. Hong Kong:
Faculty of Education, Hong Kong University.
Marsh, D. & Marsland, B. (1999). CLIL
Initiatives for the Millennium. Retrieved
April 20, 2008 from http://
www.clilcompendium.com/clilcontacts.htm.
Marsh, H.W. & Hau, K.T. (2000). Late immersion
and language of instruction in Hong Kong high
136 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER
schools: Achievement growth in language and
non-language subjects. Harvard Educational
Review, 70(3), 302-346.
Marton, F. & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and
awareness. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum
Associates.
Musumeci, D. (1996). Teacher-learner negotiation
in content-based instruction: Communication at
cross-purposes? Applied Linguistics, 17, 286-
325.
Owen, B. (1997, December 12). School worried
it will not get fair hearing. South China
Morning Post.
Pica, T. (2002). Subject matter content: How does
it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of
classroom language learners. The Modern
Language Journal, 86(1), 1-19.
SCOLAR. (1999). Survey on medium of
instruction – a synopsis of findings. Retrieved
April 20, 2008 from http://www.emb.gov.hk/
emb/chi/archive/consult/lan-stud.html.
Shek, C.K.W., Johnson, R.K. & Law, E.H.F.
(1991). Survey of the language policy and
practice in 193 Hong Kong secondary schools,
New Horizons, 32, 1-10.
Snow, M.A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A
conceptual framework for the integration of
language and content in second/foreign language
instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 201-217.
VOL. 17 NO. 2
So, D. (1992). Language-based bifurcation of
secondary schools in Hong Kong. In Luke,
K.K. (Eds.), Into the 21st Century: Issues of
language in education in Hong Kong. (pp.?)
Hong Kong: Linguistic Society of Hong Kong.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence:
Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In
Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. G. (Eds.), Input in
second language acquisition (pp.235-253).
New York: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in
second language learning. In G. Cook & B.
Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in
applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G.
Widdowson (pp.125-144). Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through
conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J.
Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom
second language acquisition (pp.64-81).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Willig, A.C. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected
studies on the effectiveness of bilingual
education. Review of Educational Research,
55, 269-318.
Wong, F. (1997, December 10). Parents simply
want the best. South China Morning Post.
LANGUAGE ENRICHMENT PROGRAMME IN POST-COLONIAL HONG KONG LI, B. 137

APPENDIX A

S4 English Proficiency Test with Geography Subject Content

Student’s Version

Section I Listening Comprehension and Writing

1. Listen carefully and follow instructions. A passage about Japan’s resources will be read three
times in English. Listen carefully and fill in the blanks with the words you hear.

Japan is a country with far fewer natural _____ materials (such as coal, ores and minerals) than it
needs for industry. However, it has a large amount of both _____ industry and light industry. Its
main heavy industries are: iron and _____ production, vehicle and machinery manufacturing,
building, electronics, _____ and food and _____ . Besides the high need for materials, Japan has
the world’s second largest rate of energy _____. Therefore, it is highly _____ on imported natural
materials and fuels.

Section II Displaying geographic interpretation in writing from data

Read the following and write down your solution to the problem, and how you got the solution.

• Look at the table below.

• Write a paragraph, making at least 3 comparisons among the social situations of Developing
Countries, Hong Kong and High Income Countries, according to the tabled information.
• Make sure you write about the possible implications of the data for Hong Kong’s quality of life.

Table: Social Profile of Developing and High Income Countries

Developing High
Countries Hong Kong Income
Countries

Illiteracy rate, adult female (% of females aged 15 and above) 31.6 9.8 —
Illiteracy rate, adult male (% of males aged 15 and above) 17.7 3.5 —
Labour force, female (% of total labour force) 40.1 37.1 43.1
Life expectancy at birth, female (years) 66.2 82.5 81
Life expectancy at birth, male (years) 62.7 77.3 74.9
Population, female (% of total) 49.4 49.1 49.5
138 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER VOL. 17 NO. 2

Appendix B

S4 English Proficiency Test with Mathematics Subject Content

Student’s Version

Section III Listening Comprehension and Speaking

Listen carefully and follow the instructions.

A company’s sales figures for the first four months of a year are given in the table at the top of the
page. Which of the following bar charts A, B or C most accurately represents the information provided in
the table? Why?

Table: Sales Figures

Month January February March April

Sales figures($) 16000 23000 19000 17000

Sa l e s f i gu r e s ($ )
A

230 00

180 00

130 00
J a n. Fe b . Mar . Ap r .

S a le s f ig u r e s ( $ )

B2 5 0 0 0
20000

15 0 0 0

10 0 0 0

5000

0
J a n. Fe b . Ma r . Ap r .

C Sales f igur es ($ )

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0
Jan. Feb. Mar . Apr .
LANGUAGE ENRICHMENT PROGRAMME IN POST-COLONIAL HONG KONG LI, B. 139

Appendix C

S4 English Proficiency Test with Mathematics Subject Content Marker’s Version

Section III Listening Comprehension and Speaking

Scoring

6 Correct, extended, complete answer in almost 100% accurate English.

For example:
Chart B (most) accurately represents the information because the range of values on the Y-
axis is most appropriate. Charts A and C (may) lead to wrong interpretations. For example,
in Chart A the sales figures for February (may) seem more than double April’s because the
Y-axis does not start with 0. Chart C give the impression that sales are generally lower
(than planned) because the Y-axis scale is perhaps/rather misleading (e.g. $50,000 worth
of sales may be an unrealistic target).
5 Does not quite achieve the extension and accuracy of ‘6’, but clear understanding is evident.
4 Takes good account of Y-axis and shows mathematical understanding in easily comprehensible
English, though with some flaws.
3 Takes account of Y-axis to a minimal extent (e.g. without plausible explanation) in English that is
comprehensible on careful reading.
For example:
I think the answer is B. Because it has m’harh – there are 5 parts for each and each part is
$5,000 dollars so I think can easy to see the different of the sales figures.
2 ‘B’ identified in comprehensible English but minimal explanation of understanding.
For example:
I think B is most accurate because B is most clearly to give me the sales figures (inaudible).I
chose B. It’s because B is more clear than C or D and the number is more than A. So we can
clearly see a difference and ……(inaudible).
1 ‘B’ identified to some extent but in mostly flawed English marking the message rather unclear.
For example:
I think the Bar chart B is the most …(incomprehensible) to … (incomprehensible) the sales
figures because it is most clearly to show the sales bought from …(incomprehensible) to
people. It is more easy to see the record of the sales each month.It is because A is … (long
pause, the student is very nervous, voice shakes). The sales figures for … (long pause). I
will choose the B’s sales figures because the B’s sales figures is … (long pause) quite good
for the sales figures for the table. Next … (long pause). (Teacher: anything else?) No.I
choose table B because it arranges all the … (inaudible) to tables and sales … (inaudible).
And it has many lies to see the eyes (incomprehensible). And then Figure A just has two lies
to see the eyes (incomprehensible). So, I think figure B is clearly to see.
0 Insufficient, incomprehensible, incorrect or irrelevant response.
For example:
I want picture A because the sales figure number is very small. It can. … (long pause,
Chinese?). Sorry, no, I don’t know how to say in English. (Teacher prompted several times.)
140 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER VOL. 17 NO. 2

Appendix D

Lesson Observation schedule (Secondary 2 and 3)

1. Learning activities

• What types of activities were used in the lesson?

• What kind of approach was adopted in carrying out the lesson? Deductive or inductive?
• How was the lesson staged to support students’ learning of language and content?
• How was the language and content support provided? Was it effective?
• Were there sufficient activities or chances for students to practice the language? What were they?
Were they effective?
• Were there sufficient chances for students to use English to express understanding of content?
• What sources of support were students encouraged to use when they had problems with the
language and content?
• Was there a particular focus on a learning skill (e.g. problem-solving)? If yes, what was it?
• Were students given the autonomy to negotiate changes in the activities?

2. Teacher-student interaction

What was the proportion (%) of the following pattern of interaction? (The first one appearing in
the pattern actually initiated the interaction)

• Teacher – whole class

• Teacher – individual
• Teacher – students in pairs
• Teacher – students in groups
• Individual – teacher
• Students in pairs – teacher
• Student – student in pairs
• Student – student in groups

3. Teacher and student language use

• To what extent was English used by the teacher in the lesson?

• What was the function of teacher language use?
• To what extent did the students use English?
• What was the function of student language use?
• Were the students’ uses of other language aspects (apart from the prescribed ones) accepted?
• How did the teacher respond to students’ use of Cantonese in class?
• How were the language errors handled?

Observation notes: Observation notes: Observation notes:

Appendix E
Lesson Observation schedule (Secondary 4)

Descriptors of different levels of performance

Production of grammatically correct English at
sentence or discourse level
0 Student never produces English sentence or
discourse in class.
1 Grammatical errors occur in every utterance or
written sentence produced by the student.
2 Grammatical errors occur in most utterances or
writing produced by the student.
3 Grammatical errors occur in many utterances or
writing produced by the student.
4 Grammatical structures of the utterances or
writing produced by the student are generally
accurate but errors may occur when more complex
structures are attempted.
5 Grammatical structures of the utterances or
writing produced by the student are mostly or
always accurate. More complex structures are
successfully attempted.
Confidence in using English in class
0 Student never takes the initiative to use English in
class. Even when asked to use English, student
keeps quiet.
1 Student never takes the initiative to use English in
class but utters a few isolated words in English
when being encouraged to do so.
2 Student rarely takes the initiative to use English in
class but occasionally give a response in English to
questions with or without being encouraged to do
so.
3 Student sometimes takes the initiative to use English
and uses English in some of the learning activities.
4 Student takes the initiative to use English to express
himself or herself in most of the learning activities.
5 Student actively uses English to express himself or
herself during the learning activities.
Use of high order thinking skills
0 Student never uses English to analyse, argue,
compare, classify, evaluate subject-related issues.
1 Student uses English to analyse, argue, compare,
classify, evaluate subject-related issues with
serious difficulty.
2 Student uses English to analyse, argue, compare,
classify, evaluate subject-related issues with much
difficulty.
3 Student uses English to analyse, argue, compare,
classify, evaluate subject-related issues with some
difficulty.
4 Student uses English to analyse, argue, compare,
classify, evaluate subject-related issues with little
difficulty.
5 Student uses English to analyse, argue, compare,
classify, evaluate subject-related issues without
any difficulty.

Name of school: __________________________________________________ Class: __________ (Arts / Science) Teacher: _______________________________

LANGUAGE ENRICHMENT PROGRAMME IN POST-COLONIAL HONG KONG

With reference to the attached descriptors, tick in the most appropriate box to indicate the levels of performance of each of the target student.

Ranking Production of grammatically correct Confidence in using English in class Use of high order thinking skills
English at sentence or discourse level
Student Name
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
1.
Observation notes: Observation notes: Observation notes:

2.
Observation notes: Observation notes: Observation notes:
LI, B.

3.
Observation notes: Observation notes: Observation notes:
141