Search Results

In the early 1870s, the importance of science education in India was gaining recognition. In 1875, the Madras University decided to evaluate its matriculation candidates in geography and elementary physics in place of British history. This chapter looks at science education in India under British rule, focusing on the medium of instruction, and the creation of several fields/subjects such as geology and mining, botany and forestry, agriculture and veterinary medicine, medical education, engineering, and technical education. It also discusses five major problems that plagued science education at the higher levels, namely: the aim and character of the educational policy itself, the shortage of funds, lack of laboratory work, the use of European models in science education, and poor administration and management.

This chapter presents an overview of the theoretical and empirical literature of bilingual education which is relevant to an understanding of how a second or foreign language (L2) can be used as a medium of instruction in schools for the dual goal of achieving bilingualism/biliteracy and cognitive/academic learning. Major theories, principles, concepts and programme options/models in bilingual education are delineated. The factors and conditions promoting or inhibiting success in bilingual education are critically reviewed. Their implications for Hong Kong and other Southeast Asian contexts are discussed.

In this chapter, an overview of key empirical studies conducted on issues related to the medium of instruction in Hong Kong schools is presented. The overview follows a chronological order and covers key studies in four main periods: (1) from the 1970s to the early 1980s, (2) the 1980s, (3) the 1990s, and (4) the 2000s. Major research findings in the past three decades point to the general lack of prerequisites for the successful implementation of English-medium education in the majority of secondary schools in Hong Kong. The unfavourable conditions found in these allegedly English-medium schools include: (1) inadequate English skills of the students to benefit from studying in English, (2) lack of language support provided by the school to these students, (3) lack of professional development opportunities for both EMI content teachers and English language subject teachers, (4) lack of Language Across the Curriculum (LAC) co-ordination: little co-ordination among EMI content teachers themselves as well as between the EMI content teachers and English language subject teachers, and (5) unsuccessful design and implementation of the existing Bridging Courses (i.e. the Longman and Macmillan Bridging Courses). In the final section of this chapter, some future directions for research are outlined.

This chapter illustrates the various models of first language (L1) and second language (L2) learning, and the relationship between language learning and achievement, which is particularly relevant for understanding the debate over the medium of instruction and student achievement.

This chapter examines the interplay between language policy and the medium of instruction in Hong Kong. The following key questions are discussed: Which languages should be taught in Hong Kong schools? What should be the medium of instruction? Which languages are useful for economic development? What level of language competence can teachers reasonably expect learners to achieve?

This chapter explores how an economic ideology—neoliberalism—serves as a covert language policy mechanism pushing the global spread of English. The chapter's analysis builds on a case study of the spread of English as a medium of instruction (MoI) in South Korean higher education. The Asian financial crisis of 1997–1998 was the catalyst for a set of socioeconomic transformations that led to the imposition of “competitiveness” as a core value. Competition is heavily structured through a host of testing, assessment, and ranking mechanisms, many of which explicitly privilege English as a terrain where individual and societal worth are established. University rankings are one such mechanism structuring competition and constituting a covert form of language policy. One ranking criterion—internationalization—is particularly easy to manipulate and strongly favors English MoI. The chapter concludes by reflecting on the social costs of elevating competitiveness to a core value enacted on the terrain of language choice.